/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170505.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, May 5, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 90 Headlines 1-800 CONTACTS: "Champion" Anti-trust Case Transferred to D. Utah AARON'S INC: "Sevilla" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wage Under Labor Code ACCORDIA LIFE: "Clapp" Sues Over Discontinued Insurance Coverage ACTAVIS ELIZABETH: Louisiana Health Hits Overpriced Propranolol ACTAVIS HOLDCO: Louisiana Health Sues Over Overpriced Ursodiol ADEPTUS HEALTH: Faces "Troll" Suit Over Securities Law Violations ALL ACCESS: Faces "Alcazar" Wage and Hour Suit AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Settles Class Action With the Blind AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH: Faces "Contreras" Wage & Hour Suit ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Mistretta" Suit in Eastern District New York ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Vosefski" Suit in Eastern District New York ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Callace" Suit in Eastern District New York ASSET RECOVERY: Faces Misrepresentation in Debt Collection Suit ASTORIA FINANCIAL: "O'Connell" Suit Challenges Sterling Merger AUROBINDO PHARMA: Louisiana Health Sues Over Overpriced Glyburide AUTOLIV INC: Awaits Approval of Antitrust Suit Settlement BEAURAYNE BUILDERS: "Valle" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA BENORE LOGISTIC: "Perkins" Has Conditional Class Certification BRITISH COLUMBIA: Responds to Suit Over Fees Welfare Recipients BROOKSTONE COMPANY: Faces "Davis" Wage and Hour Suit CERTIFIEDSAFETY INC: Faces Suit Over Labor Code Violations CHEN OSAKA: "Lian" Suit Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay, Tips CLASSIC HARBOR: Faces "Zayas" Suit in Southern District New York CONNECTICUT: "Perez" Suit Seeks Certification of Prisoners Class COPEL: Appeal on BRL105,010 Payable to Tradener Still Pending COVELLI FAMILY: "Leleux" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay CREDIT CONTROL: "Kaziev" Suit Moved to E.D.N.Y. Federal Court CREDIT CONTROL: "Lerman" Suit Moved to E.D.N.Y. Federal Court CREDIT CONTROL: "Shields" Suit Moved to E.D.N.Y. Federal Court CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Valdivieso Seeks to Certify Class DEMOCRATIC NAT'L: Not Required to be Unbiased bet. Candidates DENVER, CO: Homeless Plaintiffs' Suit Gets Class Action Status DIRECT ENERGY: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Richards" Suit DNC SERVICES: Court Hears Arguments on Bid to Dismiss Class Suit DR PEPPER: Lawyers Say Consumers Fail to Support False Ad Claims ERIK FREESE: Faces "Lewis" Suit in Northern District of Illinois ESCALLATE LLC: Faces "Molina" Suit in Middle District of Florida EUREKA, CA: Judge Narrows Claims in "Cobine" EXPRESS COURIER: "Harris" Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class EXTERIOR DESIGNS: "Navarro" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages FASHION NOVA: "Rosillo" Suit Seeks Premium Wages Under Labor Code FLINT, MI: MDEQ Defendants Appeal Ruling in "Nappier" Class Suit FOUGERA PHARMA: Louisiana Health Hits Overpriced Clobetasol FOX RESTAURANT: "Watt" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA FRESENIUS MEDICAL: "Roldan" Suit Seeks Premium Wages GARDENS ON THE BAY: "Adler" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Damages GENPACT SERVICES: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed GUILLERMO PRADO: "Ledo" Claims Overtime Pay, Missed Breaks HARBOR FREIGHT: Misrepresents Solar Kit Wattage, Morgan Claims HARRIS COUNTY: Judge Says Bail System Unfair to Indigent People HD SUPPLY: Court Wants Settlement Approval Bid Revised HODGSON MILL: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss False Advertising Suit HOWARD HUGHES: Picasso Seeks to Block Vote On Share Purchase ILLINOIS: "Koss" Suit Seeks Certification of Two Classes ILLINOIS: Judge OKs Class Action Over Prison Health Care INFOMART INC: Faces "Mills" Suit in N.D. West Virginia IRWIN SIMON: "Barnes" Hits Company Financials, Fiscal Governance JEFFERSON COUNTY, TX: Faces "Whatley" Suit in E.D. Texas JOHNSON & SON: Faces "Machlan" Suit in N.D. California KANDI TECH: "Tavrovsky" Sues Over Share Drop, Faulty Financials KELLY SERVICES: Sued Over Employment-Related Communications KIMPTON HOTEL: Judge Rejects Bid to Dismiss Data Breach Suit LOS ANGELES, CA: "Garcia" Case Settlement Fails to Win Approval MARSHALL SQUARE: Mediation to Settle Claims Over 2015 Fire Fails MATCH GROUP: Hit With Deceptive Advertising Class Action MICRO-STAR INTERNATIONAL: Laptops Not Upgradeable, Thornton Says MILWAUKEE BUCKS: Settles Cheerleader Pay Class Action MCDONALD'S CORP: Salazar Appeals N.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Circuit MYLAN INC: Cesar Castillo Sues Over Overpriced EpiPen Injectable NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Deepe Appeals S.D. Ind. Ruling to 7th Cir. NATIONAL HOCKEY: Asks Court to Remove 2 Players From Class Action NATIONAL IMAGING: "Mauthe" Sues Over Unsolicited Faxed Ads NEIMAN MARCUS: Certification of Class & Subclasses Sought NEW MEXICO: Judge Allows Wage Law Violations Suit to Proceed OCWEN FINANCIAL: "Lundgren" Files Securities Suit in E.D. Pa. ONTARIO: Fails to Eliminate Wait List for Support Services ONTARIO HOCKEY: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Minimum Wage PENNSYLVANIA, USA: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in "Stradford" Suit PERSONIFIED CONSTRUCTION: "Villatoro" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages PETROSSIAN RESTAURANTS: Shabu Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA PIZZA HUT: Court to Hear Appeal in Franchisee Suit This Month PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Faces "Lockridge" Suit in E.D. New York QUAIN ENTERPRISES: "Buron" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay QUALCOMM INC: "Carroll" Antitrust Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. QUALITY DINING: Joseph Appeals E.D. Penn. Ruling to Third Circuit QUALITY DINING: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in "Cicero" Class Suit RBS HOLDINGS: BBSW Manipulation Class Action Underway RBS HOLDINGS: Awaits Court OK on Forex Manipulation Case Accord RENT-A-CENTER: "Blair" Rent Dispute Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. RITE AID: Wins Summary Judgment in TCPA Suit Over Flu Vaccine RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA: Coroners Sold Land Containing Gravesites TESLA: Suit Says Autopilot Car Dangerously Defective SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces "Jacobs" Suit in W.D. Kentucky SAN PIETRO: Faces "Carchi" Suit in Southern District of New York SIGNET JEWELERS: Firemen's Fund Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y SPOKANE, WA: "Trevino" Suit v. Social Health Service Filed SRM ENTERPRISES: Faces "Hill" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania SYRACUSE, NY: Winston Seeks 2nd Circuit Review of N.D.N.Y. Ruling TACONIC: Judge Denies Dismissal of Water Pollution Suit TOWER HILL: MSPA Appeals S.D. Fla. Ct. Ruling to 11th Cir. TSG COLLECTIONS: Faces "Gendelberg" Suit in E.D. New York UNION LOCAL 237: Discriminates Minority Employees, Wynn Says UNITED AIRLINES: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in "Vidrio" Suit UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissed Claims vs. Unit UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Seeks Review of Ruling in "Peterson" Suit UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Faces "Kuykendall" Wage and Hour Suit USCB INC: "Gallups" Sues Over Illegal Collections Calls VITAL RECOVERY: Faces "Sabin" Suit in Eastern District New York WINTERS LANDSCAPE: Settlement in "Magana" Suit Has Initial OK ZELTIQ AESTHETICS: Faces Deceptive Advertising Class Suit * Fin'l Advisers Face Increased Risk of Class Action Litigation * Foley & Lardner Comments on Challenging Limited Issue Suits Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Cir. Vacates Foster Wheeler Summary Ruling ASBESTOS UPDATE: Take-Home Suit vs. Avondale Remanded to State Ct ASBESTOS UPDATE: Md. District Court Keen to Remand "Abrogast" ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Bobo" Suit Remanded for Damages Recalculation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Destructive Testing OK'd in Mesothelioma Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Verdict vs. Millar Companies Affirmed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver Had US$108.5MM Reserve at Feb. 28 ASBESTOS ALERT: Arconic, Units Face PI Suits at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint, Units Still Face Suits at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Records US$696MM Liability at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Still Faces 36,052 Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco Plc, Units Still Defend Suits at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar Still Faces Asbestos Claims at Jan. 31 ASBESTOS ALERT: DOJ, EPA Probe Metaldyne Unit's WI Facility ASBESTOS UPDATE: EMC Ups A&E IBNR Reserves by US$3.5MM in 2016 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gorman-Rupp Still Defends Suits at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Joy Global Faces 3,711 Asbestos, Silica Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hexion Inc. Still Defends in Suits at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toro Company Still Defends Suits at Feb. 3 ASBESTOS ALERT: Northwest Pipe Accrues $0.2MM for Plant VCP ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Units Face 58 PI Suits at Jan. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: MYR Group Still Defends Suits at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: OSG Still Faces Asbestos Suits at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Faces 103 PI Cases at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Still Facing Asbestos Suits at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit vs. Energy Fuels' Mill Still Pending in TX ASBESTOS UPDATE: CPA17 Records $17.7-Mil. ARO at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Had 1,200 Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Had US$303.6MM Loss Reserves at Dec 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: MLIC Still Faces Asbestos Suits at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Republic Has $89.6MM Gross Reserve at Dec31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Chemical Unit Still Faces Claims at Dec31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Faces 636 PI Cases at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Badger Meter Still Defends PI Suits at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chubb Ltd. Had US$1.7-Bil. Reserve at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wabtec, Units Still Face PI Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Port to Rid of Asbestos in Hillcrest Properties ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vernon School District Faces $628,000 Fines ASBESTOS UPDATE: NZ Resident Fears Asbestos in Dumped Rubbish ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Faces Jail for Dumping Asbestos Waste ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wish School Reopens After Receiving Clearance ASBESTOS UPDATE: U of T Rooms Reopen Following Asbestos Leaks ********* 1-800 CONTACTS: "Champion" Anti-trust Case Transferred to D. Utah ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Kathryn Champion, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-60696, (S.D. Fla., April 7, 2017), was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Utah on April 24, 2017, under Case No. 2:17-cv-00323. 1-800 Contacts sells contact lenses and related products over the internet and by telephone throughout the United States, including the State of Arkansas. It allegedly entered into bidding agreements with search engine companies that did not display the prices, products and services offered by its competitors in the market for online sales of contact lenses, thus limiting price and competition. [BN] Plaintiff seeks to recover damages, including treble damages, costs of suit, and reasonable attorneys' fees and injunctive relief in resulting from restraint of trade in violation of the Sherman Act and in violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Plaintiff is represented by: Randall K. Pulliam, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC 519 West 7th Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 Facsimile: (501) 312-8505 Email: rpulliam@cbplaw.com - and - Steven L. Bloch, Esq. Mark B. DeSanto, Esq. BAILEY GLASSER LLP One Tower Bridge 100 Front Street, Suite 1235 West Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (610) 834-7506 Facsimile: (610) 834-7509 Email: sbloch@baileyglasser.com mdesanto@baileyglasser.com - and - James L. Kauffman, Esq. BAILEY GLASSER LLP 1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230 Washington, DC 20007 Phone: (202) 463-2101 Facsimile: (202) 463-2103 Email: jkauffman@baileyglasser.com Defendant is represented by: Sara M. Nielson, Esq. Robert S. Clark, Esq. PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS 101 South 200 East, Suite 700 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Tel: (801) 532-7840 Fax. (801) 532-7750 Email: rclark@parrbrown.com snielson@parrbrown.com AARON'S INC: "Sevilla" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wage Under Labor Code ----------------------------------------------------------------- ARMINDA SEVILLA, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiff, v. AARON'S, INC., a Georgia corporation, and Does 1 through 30, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC659590 (Cal. Super. Ct., Apr. 28, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, wages for meal and rest break violations, unreimbursed business expenses, statutory penalties, restitution, statutory penalties and damages pursuant to California Labor Code. The case is brought on behalf of Plaintiff and a class of: (1) all hourly-paid employees employed by, or formerly employed by, Defendants within the State of California, to recover unpaid overtime compensation, wages for meal and rest break violations, unreimbursed business expenses, statutory penalties, restitution, as well as other damages owed pursuant to the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. (the "Hourly Paid Class"); and, (2) all former similarly-situated employees of Defendants that did not receive the timely payment of their wages upon the termination of their employment to recover statutory penalties and damages owed pursuant to California Labor Code section 203 (the "Waiting Time Class"). As a result of Defendants' company-wide policies and practices, Plaintiff and other members of the Hourly Class were denied overtime wages because Defendants failed to include commission and bonuses earned when determining Plaintiff and other members of the class' regular rate of pay for calculating their overtime wages. Plaintiff and other members of the Hourly Class were also not reimbursed for necessary business expenses because Defendants required them to wear specific uniforms but did not reimburse Plaintiff and other members of the Hourly Class for the uniforms' cost. Further, Defendants did not provide Plaintiff and other members of the Hourly Class with off-duty, uninterrupted meal and rest breaks as they routinely compelled Plaintiff and other members of the class to work during and through their meal and rest breaks. Plaintiff and other members of the Hourly Class were not paid all wages due upon their termination because they did not timely receive all compensation due including overtime wages, additional wages for meal and rest periods that were not provided; premium pay for the failure to provide meal and rest breaks; and reimbursement of business expenses. Plaintiff and other members of the Waiting Time Class were not paid all wages due upon their termination because they did not timely receive all of their earned wages. Plaintiff and other members of the Hourly Class did not receive accurate itemized wage statements that complied with California Labor Code section 226, subdivision (a), because the wage statements did not accurately state gross wages earned, all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate, and net wages earned due to Defendants' failure to properly calculate and pay overtime wages and to maintain lawful meal or rest break policies. Aaron's, Inc. is a lease-to-own retailer. The company focuses on leases and retail sales of furniture, electronics, appliances, and computers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shadie L. Berenji, Esq. Andrew J. Malatesta, Esq. BERENJI LAW FIRM, APC 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 708 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 855 3270 Facsimile: (310) 855 3751 E-mail: berenji@employeeiustice.law malatesta@emploveejustice.law ACCORDIA LIFE: "Clapp" Sues Over Discontinued Insurance Coverage ---------------------------------------------------------------- Larry Clapp, Mary Jones and Daryl McCleary, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Accordia Life and Annuity Company, Global Atlantic Financial Group Limited and Alliance-One Services, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02097, (C.D. Ill., April 20, 2017), seeks actual and compensatory damages and interest, restitution, disgorgement and other equitable monetary relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and costs and any other relief resulting from negligence, breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, unfair and deceptive trade practices and common law consumer fraud. Plaintiffs purchased universal life insurance policies in which the policies had a no-lapse guarantee rider, under which the policy was guaranteed never to lapse. The policy premiums were to be automatically deducted from Plaintiffs' checking account monthly, for approximately 10 years. Plaintiffs allege that insurer Accordia ceased making automatic withdrawals of premium payments from their individual accounts, beginning in approximately August of 2015, thus removed the no- lapse guarantee from Plaintiff's policy. Accordia stopped automatically withdrawing or accepting premium payments during a conversion period which caused the policies to lapse in order to have their "no-lapse guarantee" removed and converted from one type of policy to another type of policy sans crucial and highly- valuable features, says the complaint. Global Atlantic is a financial services holding company that sells insurance and investment products through various subsidiaries, including Accordia. Alliance-One is a third-party insurance administrator hired by Accordia to administer its life insurance and annuity contracts. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Vess A. Miller, Esq. Irwin B. Levin, Esq. Richard E. Shevitz, Esq. Vess A. Miller, Esq. Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Fax: (317) 636-2593 Email: rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com vmiller@cohenandmalad.com ltoops@cohenandmalad.com - and - Stephen L. Williams, Esq. WILLIAMS LAW FIRM 646 Walnut Street Terre Haute, IN 478070 Telephone: (812) 232-0107 Email: steve@williamsinjurylaw.com ACTAVIS ELIZABETH: Louisiana Health Hits Overpriced Propranolol --------------------------------------------------------------- Louisiana Health Service Indemnity Company D/B/A Blue Cross and Blue Shield Of Louisiana and HMO Louisiana, Inc., Plaintiff v. Actavis Elizabeth, LLC, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Pliva, Inc., Mylan Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., UDL Laboratories, Inc., Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Heritage Pharmaceuticals Inc., Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc., and Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01876 (E.D. Pa., April 25, 2017), seeks, on behalf of a class of all persons and entities in the United States and its territories who indirectly purchased, paid and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price for Defendants' generic Propranolol products, other than for resale, from October 1, 2012 through the present, restitution and/or damages, actual damages, statutory damages, punitive or treble damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on such monetary relief, equitable relief in the form of restitution and/or disgorgement of all unlawful or illegal profits received, injunction against Defendants, their affiliates, successors, transferees, assignees, and other officers, directors, partners, agents and employees thereof, and all other persons acting or claiming to act on their behalf or in concert with them, from in any manner continuing, maintaining, or renewing the conduct, contract, conspiracy, or combination from further overpricing. The suit also seeks costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees resulting from unlawful restraint of trade, unjust enrichment, unfair competition or unfair, unconscionable, deceptive or fraudulent acts or practices and for violation of the Sherman Act and various state antitrust laws protection and unfair competition statutes. Defendants control the United States market for generic propranolol, a beta-blocker used to manage cardiac arrhythmias, tremors, angina, hypertension, heart rhythm disorders and other heart or circulatory conditions. Defendants allegedly conspired to fix the prices of propranolol to eliminate competition. Louisiana Health Service and Indemnity Company operates as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana and is a domestic health insurance corporation licensed to provide health benefits to covered members, insurance benefits, third party administrative services and manages health care services for its members. Par is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Chestnut Ridge, New York. It supplies and distributes generic drugs. Breckenridge Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Fairfield, New Jersey. It sells Propranolol Capsules in this District and throughout the United States. Endo International PLC is an Irish corporation with its principal place of business located in Dublin, Ireland and United States headquarters in Malvern, Pennsylvania. Its subsidiary, Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., sells Propranolol Tablets throughout the United States. Heritage Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Eatontown, New Jersey. Heritage sells propranolol tablets throughout the United States. Heritage is a subsidiary of Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd., based in Pune, India. Impax is a Delaware corporation that has its principal place of business in Hayward, California. Impax's generics division is called Global Pharmaceuticals and is a manufacturer and distributor of generic Propranolol Tablets. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 1090 Horsham Road, North Wales, Pennsylvania 19454. Teva USA is a wholly owned subsidiary of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Actavis Elizabeth, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business at 200 Elmora Ave., Elizabeth, NJ 07207. Actavis was acquired by Teva in 2016. Pliva, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business at 72 Deforest Ave. East Hanover, NJ 07936. Pliva is a subsidiary of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. Mylan, Inc. is a global generics and specialty pharmaceutical company based in the Netherlands. UDL Laboratories, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business at 1718 Northrock Ct, Rockford, Illinois 61103. UDL is a subsidiary of Mylan Inc. Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc. is a Minnesota corporation with its principal place of business at 6701 Evenstad Drive, Maple Grove, Minnesota 55369. Defendants market and sell generic propranolol tablets throughout the United States. Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Dugan, II, Esq. Douglas Robert Plymale, Esq. David S. Scalia, Esq. Lance Bordelon, Esq. Mekel Smith Alvarez, Esq. DUGAN LAW FIRM LLC 365 Canal St., Ste. 1000 New Orleans, LA 70130 Tel: (504) 648-0180 Fax: (504) 648-0181 Email: jdugan@dugan-lawfirm.com dscalia@dugan-lawfirm.com dplymale@dugan-lawfirm.com lbordelon@dugan-lawfirm.com mekel@dugan-lawfirm.com ACTAVIS HOLDCO: Louisiana Health Sues Over Overpriced Ursodiol -------------------------------------------------------------- Louisiana Health Service Indemnity Company d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield Of Louisiana and HMO Louisiana, Inc., Plaintiff v. Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc., Lannett Company, Inc. and Epic Pharma, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01875 (E.D. Pa., April 25, 2017), seeks, on behalf of a class of all persons and entities in the United States and its territories who indirectly purchased, paid and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price for Defendants' generic Ursodiol, other than for resale, from October 1, 2012 through the present, restitution and/or damages, actual damages, statutory damages, punitive or treble damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on such monetary relief, equitable relief in the form of restitution and/or disgorgement of all unlawful or illegal profits received, injunction against Defendants, their affiliates, successors, transferees, assignees, and other officers, directors, partners, agents and employees thereof, and all other persons acting or claiming to act on their behalf or in concert with them, from in any manner continuing, maintaining, or renewing the conduct, contract, conspiracy, or combination from further overpricing. The suit further seeks costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees resulting from unlawful restraint of trade, unjust enrichment, unfair competition or unfair, unconscionable, deceptive or fraudulent acts or practices and for violation of the Sherman Act and various state antitrust laws protection and unfair competition statutes. Defendants control the United States market for generic Ursodiol or ursodeoxycholic acid, in capsule form. It is a bile acid that decreases the amount of cholesterol produced by the liver and absorbed by the intestines and is prescribed for gallbladder stone dissolution. Louisiana Health Service and Indemnity Company operates as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana and is a domestic health insurance corporation licensed to provide health benefits to covered members, insurance benefits, third party administrative services and manages health care services for its members. Lannett is a Delaware corporation that has its principal place of business in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Lannett is a distributor of generic Urdodiol. Epic Pharma, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Laurelton, New York. Epic markets and sells generic Ursodiol throughout the United States. Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc. is a Delaware corporation that has its administrative headquarters in Parsippany-Troy Hills, New Jersey. Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Dugan, II, Esq. Douglas Robert Plymale, Esq. David S. Scalia, Esq. Lance Bordelon, Esq. Mekel Smith Alvarez, Esq. DUGAN LAW FIRM LLC 365 Canal St., Ste. 1000 New Orleans, LA 70130 Tel: (504) 648-0180 Fax: (504) 648-0181 Email: jdugan@dugan-lawfirm.com dscalia@dugan-lawfirm.com dplymale@dugan-lawfirm.com lbordelon@dugan-lawfirm.com mekel@dugan-lawfirm.com ADEPTUS HEALTH: Faces "Troll" Suit Over Securities Law Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- SASCHA TROLL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ADEPTUS HEALTH INC., GREGORY W. SCOTT, THOMAS S. HALL, FRANK R. WILLIAMS JR. and TIMOTHY L. FIELDING, the Defendants, Case No. 6:17-cv-00241 (E.D. Tex., April 27, 2017), seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, against the Company and certain of its top officials. The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Adeptus securities between April 29, 2016 and March 1, 2017, both dates inclusive (the Class Period). Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company had material weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting in the areas of revenue recognition, accounts receivable, accounting for a contribution to an unconsolidated joint venture, and accounting for equity in (loss) earnings of unconsolidated joint ventures; (ii) accordingly, the Company lacked effective internal controls over financial reporting; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Adeptus's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On March 2, 2017, the Company filed a Form 12b-25 announcing the delay in the filing of its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 and revealing additional material weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting. On this news, Adeptus' share price fell $3.76 or 57.4%, to close at $2.79 per share on March 2, 2017. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Adeptus Health operates an independent network of free-standing emergency rooms. The Company provides emergency medical care to patients in Texas and Colorado. Founded in 2002, the Company is headquartered in Lewisville, Texas. Adeptus's stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) under the ticker symbol "ADPT."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Willie C. Briscoe, Esq. THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC 3131 McKinney Avenue, Suite 600 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (214) 643 6011 Facsimile: (281) 254 7789 E-mail: cwbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Hui M. Chang, Esq. Patrick V. Dahlstrom POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661 1100 Facsimile: (212) 661 8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com hchang@pomlaw.com pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697 6484 Facsimile: (212) 697 7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com ALL ACCESS: Faces "Alcazar" Wage and Hour Suit ---------------------------------------------- BLANCA ALCAZAR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ALL ACCESS APPAREL, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC659608 (Cal. Super. Ct., Apr. 28, 2017), seeks to recover premium wages for missed meal and rest periods, penalties, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs, pursuant to the California Labor Code and California Code of Regulations. For at least four years prior to the filing of the action and continuing to the present, Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to provide Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees or former employees within the State of California a 30-minute uninterrupted meal period for days on which the employees worked more than five hours in a workday and a second 30 minute uninterrupted meal periods for days on which the employees worked in excess of ten hours in a work day, and failing to provide compensation for such unprovided meal periods; failing to provide rest periods of at least ten minutes per four hours worked or major fraction and failing to provide compensation for such unprovided rest periods; and failing to pay full amount of wages upon termination and/or resignation. All Access, doing business as Self Esteem, manufactures clothing line for teens. The company's clothing line includes fashion tops and active wear.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Nourmand, Esq. James A. De Sario, Esq. THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC 8822 West Olympic Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 553 3600 Facsimile: (310) 553 3603 AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Settles Class Action With the Blind ------------------------------------------------------ Nicholas Iovino at Courthouse News reports under a new settlement, one of the nation's largest movie theater chains, AMC, will adopt sweeping reforms to give blind customers access to devices that describe visual elements in films. "It makes the movie going experience more equal for blind patrons to experience what folks who are sighted see in movies," said Michael Nunez, Esq. -- mnunez@rbgg.com -- of Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, who represented a class of blind and visually impaired moviegoers. Lead plaintiff Scott Blanks sued AMC in February 2016, saying that though the theatre chain supposedly offered audio-description devices, it often gave blind patrons the wrong gadgets, such as devices intended for deaf people, or malfunctioning equipment. Under the two-year settlement deal, AMC will train employees how to use and set up the devices, create a step-by-step guide for them, and test the equipment weekly. Nunez said the class hopes the new policies and procedures will become engrained in AMC culture and remain in place long after the two-year settlement term expires. As part of the deal, AMC will keep all complaints it receives about the audio description devices, and a disability access coordinator will review and resolve those complaints, Nunez said. The theatre chain will also create audio descriptions for its pre- film announcements, giving blind patrons a chance to test their devices and make sure they work properly before the film starts. AMC also will ensure that suppliers of movie trailers provide audio descriptions for film previews whenever possible, Nunez said. Beyond carrying out changes in theatres, AMC will also make its website and mobile app more accessible and publicize the availability of its audio-description equipment online. Furthermore, it will update its website and mobile apps to inform patrons when audio equipment is out or unavailable at certain locations, Nunez added. "We're hoping the policies and practices in the settlement serve as a model for other movie theatre chains as they look to improve access to audio description at their theatres as well," Nunez said. Nunez, of Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld in San Francisco, worked with attorneys from Disability Rights Advocates in Berkeley to secure the settlement deal. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit include Blanks, the California Council of the Blind, Lighthouse for the Blind and Visually Impaired, Leah Gardner, Charles Nabarrete, Robert Schulenburg and Empish Thomas. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on April 27 approved a stipulated request to dismiss the case without prejudice. Rogers will retain jurisdiction over the case until April 2019 to ensure compliance. AMC did not immediately respond to a phone call and email seeking comment on April 27 night. [GN] AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH: Faces "Contreras" Wage & Hour Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER CONTRERAS, in her individual and representative capacity Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, INC., a corporation, and DOES 1-10, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC659580 (Cal. Super. Ct., Apr. 28, 2017), seeks to recover overtime pay and regular/minimum wages under California's wage and hour laws. The Plaintiff was a receptionist/office administrator/assistant at American University Of Health Sciences, Inc. who was regularly denied legally required timely and uninterrupted meal periods and rest periods and was denied payment of overtime actually worked. The American University uses an array of similarly situated "receptionists," "administrators," or "assistants," or similar titles, to carry out the same or similar functions as Plaintiff who are, on information and belief, similarly denied timely and uninterrupted meal periods and rest periods and payment for overtime worked. The Employer subjected Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees to various unlawful wage and hour practices, including but not limited to (1) failing to pay overtime pay; (2) failing to pay minimum wages; (3) failing to provide uninterrupted off-duty meal periods and/or required penalties; (4) failing to provide uninterrupted off-duty rest periods and/or required penalties; (5) failing to maintain adequate records; (6) failing to furnish accurate wage statements; and (7) failing to timely pay all wages due upon termination. The American University of Health Sciences (AUHS) was established in 1994 by Dr. Kim Dang (Hon.) and Pastor Gregory Johnson. AUHS is a Christian based, private, for profit, postsecondary education institute created to provide excellence in education for students interested in a career in healthcare. Students can obtain healthcare degrees in the school of nursing, school of pharmacy or clinical research professions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James B. Hardin, Esq. Ward J. Lott, Esq. HARDIN & LOTT, APC 4340 Von Karman Ave., Suite 380 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 337 4810 Facsimile: (949) 706 6469 E-mail: jhardin@hardinemploymentlaw.com wlott@hardinemploymentlaw.com ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Mistretta" Suit in Eastern District New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARS National Services, Inc. The case is entitled as Loretta Mistretta, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ARS National Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02547 (E.D.N.Y., Apr. 28, 2017). ARS National offers accounts receivable management services. It caters to financial services organizations; banks; and credit card companies.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Vosefski" Suit in Eastern District New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARS National Services, Inc. The case is captioned as Holly F. Vosefski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ARS National Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02554 (E.D.N.Y., Apr. 28, 2017). ARS National offers accounts receivable management services. It caters to financial services organizations; banks; and credit card companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. SANDERS LAW, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203 7600 Facsimile: (516) 281 7601 E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Callace" Suit in Eastern District New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARS National Services, Inc. The case is styled as Frank Callace, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ARS National Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02533 (E.D.N.Y., Apr. 27, 2017). ARS National offers accounts receivable management services. It caters to financial services organizations; banks; and credit card companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. SANDERS LAW, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203 7600 Facsimile: (516) 281 7601 E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com ASSET RECOVERY: Faces Misrepresentation in Debt Collection Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Louie Torres at Cook County Record reports that consumer has filed a class action lawsuit against Asset Recovery Solutions LLC, a debt collector, citing alleged misrepresentation in debt collection. Yuridia Trujillo filed a complaint on behalf of a class on March 27 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Asset Recovery Solutions alleging that it sent a collection letter to the plaintiff regarding her student loan debts. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that, in February 2017, she sustained damages from receiving a collection letter that contained misleading information regarding her debt. The plaintiff alleges the defendant failed to inform the plaintiff that her student loan debt is time-barred. The plaintiff seeks statutory damages of USD1,000 for each loan that was the subject of an improper communication, actual damages, court costs and any further relief this court grants. She is represented by Daniel A. Edelman, Cathleen M. Combs, James O. Latturner and Emiliya Gumin Farbstein -- info@edcombs.com -- of Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC in Chicago. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Case number 1:17-cv-02303[GN] ASTORIA FINANCIAL: "O'Connell" Suit Challenges Sterling Merger -------------------------------------------------------------- LISA O'CONNELL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ASTORIA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, JOHN R. CHRIN, JOHN J. CORRADO, ROBERT GIAMBRONE, GERARD C. KEEGAN, BRIAN M. LEENEY, PATRICIA M. NAZEMETZ, RALPH F. PALLESCHI, MONTE N. REDMAN, and STERLING BANCORP, the Defendants, Case No. 603703/2017 (N.Y. Super. Ct., Apr. 28, 2017), is brought on behalf of the public stockholders of Astoria Financial Corporation against members of Astoria's Board of Directors and Sterling Bancorp alleging breaches of fiduciary duties and/or other violations of state law, and aiding and abetting, in connection with the Board's decision to sell Astoria to Sterling for inadequate consideration to the detriment of the Company's public stockholders following a flawed sales process, as announced on March 7, 2017 ("Proposed Transaction"). On March 7, 2017, Astoria and Sterling jointly announced that they had entered into a definitive merger agreement (Merger Agreement) pursuant to which Sterling will acquire all of the outstanding shares of common stock of Astoria in exchange for 0.875 shares of Sterling (the "Merger Consideration"). The Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately $2.2 billion. The Proposed Transaction is the end product of an insufficient sales process where a desperate Astoria Board sought a quick sale of the Company to lock in for itself certain merger related financial benefits that it would not have otherwise received absent a transaction -- even going as far as to ignore an interested alternative bidder's potentially topping bid while agreeing to contractual provisions that closed the door on a superior offer. On October 28, 2015, Astoria announced that it had entered into a merger agreement "Failed NYCB Merger Agreement") pursuant to which it agreed to be acquired by New York Community Bank (the "Failed Transaction"). According to reports, federal regulators refused to approve the deal over concerns that the bank would become too "systematically important", or in other words, too big to fail. The Company formally announced the termination of the Failed Merger Agreement on December 20, 2016, to be effective on January 1, 2017. As alleged further, the Board never considered and was entirely unprepared to manage the Company as a standalone entity following the Failed Transaction, and entered into the Proposed Transaction in order to cash out of the Company and secure for themselves certain financial benefits related to their directorships. Following the collapse of the NYCB merger, neither the Board of Astoria, nor Company management were interested in continuing operations as a standalone entity, as numerous stock options, RSUs, and RSAs, had vested at the conclusion of 2015 in anticipation of the Failed Transaction. Moreover, in December 2016, certain members of the Board only narrowly won reelection to their seats, garnering only a plurality of the votes and not a majority, with the Company also having consecutive say-on-pay proxy proposals voted against. The shifting tides of stockholder sentiment against the Board indicate that support for the Board was wearing thing and some, if not all of the Company's directors would soon see themselves on the outs absent a sale of the Company. Accordingly, when the NYCB merger terminated, Astoria sought out a quick deal the first viable bidder available, agreeing to the Proposed Transaction with Sterling that fails to provide Astoria stockholders with adequate compensation for their shares in the current high growth environment for the financial sector. The Proposed Transaction also fails to provide sufficient consideration to Astoria stockholders in light of the increased risk posed by the stock for stock exchange with Sterling, as the Proposed Transaction exposes Astoria stockholders to a bank with a weaker capital position. Indeed, the announcement of the Proposed Transaction has already resulted in Astoria's debt holdings being placed under review by Moody's for a prospective downgrade. Further, the structure of the Merger Agreement does nothing to protect from the deflating effect of a drop in Sterling's stock price, as the Board failed to negotiate any collar for the benefit of Astoria's stockholders. On March 6, 2017, the day in which the Merger Agreement was executed, the adjusted closing price of Sterling was $25.05. Since then, Sterling's stock price has faced a consistent decline, trading below $23 per share as of April 20, 2017, resulting in a lower implied valuation for the Company and its stockholders. Compounding the flawed sales process and insufficient Merger Consideration, the Board has also agreed to certain deal protection provisions in the Merger Agreement that effectively guard against a topping offer. Specifically, in the Merger Agreement, the Board agreed to: (i) a strict no-solicitation provision that prevents the Company from soliciting other potential Defendants further breached their fiduciary duties and/or aided and abetted said breach to Astoria stockholders on April 4, 2017, when they caused the materially false and misleading S-4 to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, as amended on April 21, 2017 (the "Registration Statement" or "S-4"). Intended to solicit stockholder approval of the Proposed Transaction, the S-4 fails to include all material information concerning, inter alia: (i) the existence of restrictive standstill provisions preventing previously interested parties from submitting a superior offer for the Company; (ii) the unfair sales process that resulted in the Proposed Transaction; (iii) the inputs and assumptions underlying the valuation analyses prepared by Sandler O'Neill & Partners, L.P. ("Sandler") Astoria's financial advisor in the Proposed Transaction, in connection with rendering its fairness opinion to the Board; and (iv) the projections for the Company's future financial performance, as used by Sandler to support its fairness findings,. As a result, Astoria's stockholders are unable to make a fully informed decision as to whether to approve the Proposed Transaction. On April 21, 2017, the Company announced that the special meeting of Company stockholders at which they would be asked to vote on the Proposed Transaction was scheduled for overtime wages, double damages and reasonable attorney fees from Defendants, jointly and severally, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. June 13, 2017. Thus, if the S-4's disclosure deficiencies, as alleged herein, are not cured in a timely fashion, Plaintiff and the Class will be irreparably harmed by having to cast an uninformed vote on the future of Astoria. As alleged, the Board agreed to the Proposed Transaction in breach of their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care, good faith, and candor owed to Plaintiff and other similarly situated stockholders. Formed in 1993, Astoria is the holding company that owns Astoria Federal Savings & Loan Association. Astoria Bank was established in 1888 and currently has deposits close to $8.9 billion, making it the second largest depository in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shane T. Rowley, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 30 Broad Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363 7500 Facsimile: (212) 363 7171 E-mail: srowley@zlk.com AUROBINDO PHARMA: Louisiana Health Sues Over Overpriced Glyburide ----------------------------------------------------------------- Louisiana Health Service Indemnity Company d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana and HMO Louisiana, Inc., Plaintiff v. Aurobindo Pharma USA, INC., Citron Pharma, LLC, Heritage Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Jeffrey A. Glazer and Jason T. Malek, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01878 (E.D. Pa., April 25, 2017), seeks, on behalf of a class of all persons and entities in the United States and its territories who indirectly purchased, paid and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price for Defendants' generic glyburide, other than for resale, from October 1, 2012 through the present, restitution and/or damages, actual damages, statutory damages, punitive or treble damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on such monetary relief, equitable relief in the form of restitution and/or disgorgement of all unlawful or illegal profits received, injunction against Defendants, their affiliates, successors, transferees, assignees, and other officers, directors, partners, agents and employees thereof, and all other persons acting or claiming to act on their behalf or in concert with them, from in any manner continuing, maintaining, or renewing the conduct, contract, conspiracy, or combination from further overpricing. The suit also seeks costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees resulting from unlawful restraint of trade, unjust enrichment, unfair competition or unfair, unconscionable, deceptive or fraudulent acts or practices and for violation of the Sherman Act and various state antitrust laws protection and unfair competition statutes. Defendants control the United States market for generic Glyburide, an anti-diabetic drug of the sulfonylurea class indicated to treat Type 2 diabetes. Louisiana Health Service and Indemnity Company operates as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana and is a domestic health insurance corporation licensed to provide health benefits to covered members, insurance benefits, third party administrative services and manages health care services for its members. Aurobindo is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business at 6 Wheeling Road, Dayton, New Jersey. Aurobindo has an ongoing partnership with Citron Pharma LLC, whereby Aurobindo manufactures generic glyburide, which Citron Pharma LLC then sells under its trade dress. Heritage Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Eatontown, New Jersey. Heritage sells Glyburide throughout the United States. Heritage is a subsidiary of Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd., based in Pune, India. Jeffrey A. Glazer sat as CEO of Heritage while Jason T. Malek was Senior Vice President, Commercial Operations and later President of Heritage. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 1090 Horsham Road, North Wales, Pennsylvania 19454. Teva USA is a wholly owned subsidiary of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Dugan, II, Esq. Douglas Robert Plymale, Esq. David S. Scalia, Esq. Lance Bordelon, Esq. Mekel Smith Alvarez, Esq. DUGAN LAW FIRM LLC 365 Canal St., Ste. 1000 New Orleans, LA 70130 Tel: (504) 648-0180 Fax: (504) 648-0181 Email: jdugan@dugan-lawfirm.com dscalia@dugan-lawfirm.com dplymale@dugan-lawfirm.com lbordelon@dugan-lawfirm.com mekel@dugan-lawfirm.com AUTOLIV INC: Awaits Approval of Antitrust Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------- Autoliv, Inc. is awaiting court approval of a February 2017 settlement agreement it entered into with plaintiffs in three antitrust class action lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. The Company is subject to civil litigation alleging anti- competitive conduct in the U.S. and Canada. Specifically, the Company, several of its subsidiaries and its competitors were named as defendants in a total of nineteen purported antitrust class action lawsuits filed between June 2012 and June 2015. Fifteen of these lawsuits were filed in the U.S. and were consolidated in the Occupant Safety Systems (OSS) segment of the Automobile Parts Antitrust Litigation, a Multi-District Litigation (MDL) proceeding in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Plaintiffs in the U.S. cases sought to represent four purported classes -- direct purchasers, auto dealers, end-payors, and, as of the filing of the last class action in June 2015, truck and equipment dealers -- who purchased occupant safety systems or components directly from a defendant, indirectly through purchases or leases of new vehicles containing such systems, or through purchases of replacement parts. In May 2014, the Company, without admitting any liability, entered into separate settlement agreements with representatives of the three classes of plaintiffs then pending in the MDL. Pursuant to the settlement agreements, the Company agreed to pay US$40 million to the direct purchaser settlement class, US$6 million to the auto dealer settlement class, and US$19 million to the end-payor settlement class, for a total of US$65 million. This amount was expensed during the second quarter of 2014. In January 2015, the MDL court granted final approval of the direct purchaser class settlement, which had been reduced to approximately US$35.5 million because of opt-outs; in December 2015, the MDL court granted final approval of the auto dealer class settlement; and in June 2016, the MDL court granted final approval of the end-payor class settlement, over the objections of several individual class members, some of whom have appealed the MDL court's approval of the Company's end-payor settlement and several other defendants' settlements that were approved at the same time. This appeal will delay the finality of the Company's settlement with the end-payor class. In addition, several individuals and one insurer (and its affiliated entities) have opted-out of the pending end-payor class settlements, including the Company's settlement. The class settlements do not resolve any claims of settlement class members who opt-out of the settlements or the unasserted claims of any purchasers of occupant safety systems who are not otherwise included in a settlement class, such as states and municipalities. In September 2016, the insurer (and its affiliated entities) that opted out of the end-payor class settlement filed an antitrust lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the venue for the MDL, against the Company and the other settling defendants in the end-payor class settlement. The Company cannot predict or estimate the duration or ultimate outcome of this matter. In March 2015, the Company, without admitting any liability, reached agreements regarding additional settlements to resolve certain direct purchasers' global (including U.S.) or non-U.S. antitrust claims that were not covered by the direct purchaser class settlement described above. The total amount of these additional settlements was US$81 million. Autoliv expensed during the first quarter of 2015 approximately US$77 million as a result of these additional settlements, net of existing amounts that had been accrued in 2014. In April 2016, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with the truck and equipment dealers class for an amount that is not material to the Company's results of operations. In November 2016, the MDL court granted final approval of the settlement and on February 3, 2017, the MDL court entered a final judgment dismissing the case against the Company. The remaining four antitrust class action lawsuits are pending in Canada (Sheridan Chevrolet Cadillac Ltd. et al. v. Autoliv, Inc. et al., filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on January 18, 2013; M. Serge Asselin v. Autoliv, Inc. et al., filed in the Superior Court of Quebec on March 14, 2013; Ewert v. Autoliv, Inc. et al., filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia on July 18, 2013; and Cindy Retallick and Jagjeet Singh Rajput v. Autoliv ASP, Inc. et al., filed in the Queen's Bench of the Judicial Center of Regina in the province of Saskatchewan on May 14, 2014). The Canadian cases assert claims on behalf of putative classes of both direct and indirect purchasers of occupant safety systems. In February 2017, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with plaintiffs in three of the four class actions to settle on a nationwide class basis for an amount that is not material to the Company's results of operations. The settlement is subject to court approvals following notice to the class members. Once approved, this national settlement will include the claims of the putative members of the fourth class action. The Company accrued amounts for the period ended December 31, 2016 in connection with these claims. Autoliv, Inc., through its subsidiaries, develops, manufactures, and supplies automotive safety systems to the automotive industry worldwide. It operates through two segments, Passive Safety and Electronics. The Company offers a range of products, including modules and components for passenger and driver-side airbags, side-impact airbag protection systems, seatbelts, steering wheels, inflator technologies, whiplash protection systems, child seats, and components; and camera-based vision systems, night driving assists, automotive radars, brake controls, positioning systems, electronic control units, and other active safety systems, as well as passive safety electronic products, such as restraint electronics and crash sensors. It primarily serves car manufacturers. The Company was founded in 1953 and is headquartered in Stockholm, Sweden. BEAURAYNE BUILDERS: "Valle" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- OSCAR VALLE, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. BEAURAYNE BUILDERS LLC, GALINDO Z CONSTRUCTION LLC, ELDRED ROBERT, JR, and JOSE GALINDO, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00274-JJB-EWD (M.D. La., Apr. 28, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages, interest, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The case is an action by Oscar Valle on behalf of himself and all others 5 similarly situated to recover unpaid overtime wages. The Plaintiff was employed as a general construction laborer by the Defendants. While working for the Defendants, Plaintiff was not paid one-and-a-half times his regular hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of forty hours a workweek, in violation of the FLSA). The Plaintiff was hired by Defendants in November 2016 and worked for Defendants for approximately five months. The Plaintiff worked at two apartment complex renovation projects for Defendants in Baton Rouge. Defendants' worksites were populated by at least sixty other laborers. Plaintiff worked as a carpenter and sheetrocker9. Defendants paid Plaintiff $22.00 per hour. For every hour that he worked in excess of forty in any particular week he was still only paid $22.00 per hour. Beaurayne Builders is in single-family housing construction business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roberto Luis Costales, Esq. William H. Beaumont, Esq. Emily A. Westermeier, Esq. BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC 3801 Canal Street Suite 207 New Orleans, LA 70119 Telephone: (504) 534 5005 E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com whbeaumont@gmail.com emily.costaleslawoffice@gmail.com BENORE LOGISTIC: "Perkins" Has Conditional Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled STEPHANIE PERKINS, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. BENORE LOGISTIC SYSTEMS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-13717-AJT-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Hon Magistrate Judge David R. Grand entered an order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify collective action and issue notice to the class pursuant to the a Fair Labor Standards Act, as follows: - Proposed Putative Class: Plaintiffs' proposed verbiage is acceptable and preferable to the one proposed by Defendant as Defendant's utilizes a legal term that class members may not readily understand. - Case Caption on the Notice: Plaintiffs' proposal to omit the case caption from the Notice is acceptable. The Court notes that the case caption is included on the Consent to Sue Form, and the Notice references that it has been "authorized" by the Court. - Rights of Class Members Who Do Not Join the Action: The parties are to edit the Notice as agreed on the record. - Obligations of Class Members to Participate in Discovery/Trial. The parties are to edit the Notice as agreed on the record. To the extent Defendant argues that there should be a reference to the potential need for class members to come to Detroit to testify in Court, the Court rejects that argument. The likelihood of class members being required to testify live in Detroit is low, whereas the likely chilling effect of Defendant's proposed verbiage is significant. - Obligations of Class Members to Pay Costs: The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the likelihood of costs being assessed against opt-in class members is low, whereas the likely chilling effect of Defendant's proposed verbiage is significant. Thus, Defendant's request to include this proposed language is denied. - Opt-In Period: The parties agreed to a 45-day opt-in period. - Method of Transmitting the Notice: While Defendant may have occasionally communicated with some employees via their outside e-mail accounts, it contends that it does not maintain a database of current or former employees' outside e-mail addresses. Accordingly, the Court will not order the Notice to be sent via e-mail. The Notice shall therefore be sent by first class U.S. Mail only. - Reminder Notecard: A reminder note card is not necessary in this case. The proposed Notice is readily understandable, and relates to matters which the recipients will understand to be important -- their potential receipt of money for unpaid overtime. Therefore, those who are interested in pursuing such relief are likely to act on the Notice. A reminder note card, on the other hand, could be construed by the recipient as the Court encouraging their participation in this action. Thus, Plaintiffs' request to allow a reminder note card is denied. - Format of Employee Information: Defendant agreed to request the relevant information from Paychex (and/or other payroll services) in a manipulable format, and provide it to Plaintiffs in whatever format it is received. If Paychex (and/or other payroll services) are unable to accommodate this request, then Defendant shall provide the relevant information in whatever form it is ordinarily maintained. In any case, the production shall include employee identification numbers (whether internal or one utilized by the payroll company). Defendant shall have until April 27, 2017, to provide this information. - Employee Identifying Information. The parties agreed that, at least for the time being, it will be sufficient for Defendant to provide the last four digits of the employees' social security numbers of those putative class members who have Notices returned without a forwarding address. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=MkWWW1YV BRITISH COLUMBIA: Responds to Suit Over Fees Welfare Recipients --------------------------------------------------------------- Vancouver Sun reports the B.C. government says it has done nothing wrong by redirecting money from the income-assistance cheques of recovering heroin addicts to pay private methadone-dispensing clinics for treatment. In documents filed in B.C. Supreme Court in March, the provincial government says private clinics can charge extra for counselling services not provided by a doctor, and that such fees can be paid for out of a beneficiary's monthly income or disability allowance. Laura Shaver is in the methadone-maintenance program and sued the province in November 2015 in what could become a class-action suit. Shaver's notice of claim says she was forced to sign a government- drafted agreement at the Yale Medical Centre in Vancouver because she needed treatment for a heroin addiction and there was no room at a public facility. The fee agreement is CAD60, which is reduced by about CAD42 through a government-provided supplement, leaving the remaining CAD18 to be drawn from her monthly support allowance. The government's response to the civil claim says it didn't force Shaver to attend the private clinic, which the province says operates separately from government. [GN] BROOKSTONE COMPANY: Faces "Davis" Wage and Hour Suit ---------------------------------------------------- NATASHA DAVIS, an individual, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BROOKSTONE COMPANY, INC., a New Hampshire corporation, and DOES 1-100, Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC659372 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 27, 2017), seeks relief on behalf of herself and the members of the putative class as a result of employment policies, practices and procedures, which violate the California Labor Code, and the orders and standards promulgated by the California Department of Industrial Relations, Industrial Welfare Commission, and Division of Labor Standards, and which have resulted in the failure of Defendant to pay Plaintiff and members of the putative class all wages due to them. The Defendant allegedly failed to provide Plaintiff and members of the putative class with timely meal and rest breaks; failed to provide one day's rest in seven; failed to pay all final wages in a timely fashion; and failed to provide proper wage statements in violations of the California Labor Code In addition, Plaintiff and members of the putative class seek relief and damages for Defendant's violation of the California's unfair competition laws, including the equitable remedies of declaratory relief, disgorgement, accounting, and restitution. Brookstone Company operates as a specialty retailer primarily in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq. Taylor L. Emerson, Esq. BRADLEY GROMBACHER, LLP 2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (805) 270 7100 Facsimile: (805) 270 7589 E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com CERTIFIEDSAFETY INC: Faces Suit Over Labor Code Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- Wadi Reformado at Northern California Record reports that a safety attendant for a Texas-based company engaged in oil drilling services alleges the company violated state labor codes. Harold Jones filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly situated on April 21 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against CertifiedSafety Inc. alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and California labor codes. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he has been employed by the defendant since 2011. The plaintiff holds Certifiedsafety Inc. responsible because the defendant allegedly failed to provide adequate meal and rest breaks to the plaintiff, failed to pay minimum or overtime wages, failed to reimburse employees for business expenditures, failed to provide accurate wage statements and failed to timely pay wages upon termination. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks unpaid wages, injunctive relief, liquidated damages, restitution, actual damages, punitive damages, all legal fees and any other relief as this court deems just. He is represented by Carolyn Hunt Cottrell -- ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com -- Nicole N. Coon -- ncoon@schneiderwallace.com -- Keenan L. Klein -- kklein@schneiderwallace.com -- and David C. Leimbach -- dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com -- of Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP in Emeryville. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Case number 3:17-cv-02229-DMR [GN] CHEN OSAKA: "Lian" Suit Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay, Tips --------------------------------------------------------- Lian Hui Qi, individually and on behalf all other employees similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Chen Osaka, Inc. d/b/a Osaka Japanese Restaurant, Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00188, (E.D. Ky., April 26, 2017), seeks restitution for the tips she was not permitted to retain, as well as the minimum wage base pay that she did not receive, overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and any other damages to which they may be entitled under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Chen Osaka, Inc. operates as Osaka Japanese Restaurant located at 3805 Dylan Place Suite 130 Lexington, Kentucky 40514 where Plaintiff worked as a waitress from March 16, 2016 to April 4, 2017. Plaintiff is represented by: Jian Hang, Esq. Hang & Associates, PLLC 136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Tel: (718) 353-8588 Email: jhang@hanglaw.com CLASSIC HARBOR: Faces "Zayas" Suit in Southern District New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Classic Harbor Line LLC. The case is entitled as Edwin Zayas, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Classic Harbor Line LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03097-RA (S.D.N.Y., Apr. 27, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Ronnie Abrams. Classic Harbor, a builder, owner and operator of modern yet classically inspired yachts, offers private charters, sailing trips and sightseeing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Bahamonde, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JAMES E. BAHAMONDE, PC 2501 Jody Court North Bellmore, NY 11710 Telephone: (516) 783 9662 Facsimile: (646) 435 4376 E-mail: James@CivilRightsNY.com CONNECTICUT: "Perez" Suit Seeks Certification of Prisoners Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned Ometrius Perez, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. George Jepsen, in his official capacity as the Attorney General of the State of Connecticut, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00614-VLB (D. Conn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying a prisoners class; and 2. appointing class counsel. The Connecticut Department of Corrections currently has in its custody approximately 16,000 prisoners. The Plaintiff estimates that the Prisoners Class of similarly situated persons far exceeds 50 prisoners. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Ct0SjhCJ The Plaintiff appears pro se. COPEL: Appeal on BRL105,010 Payable to Tradener Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Companhia Paranaense de Energia - Copel is awaiting judgment on its appeal regarding a BRL105,010 liability to Tradener Ltda., according to the Company's Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. Class actions and civil public actions were filed in which illegalities and annulments relating to the execution of the electric power purchase agreement entered into between the Company and Tradener are pointed out. Class action No. 588/2006 has already been rendered final and unappeasable, and the ruling recognized as valid commissions payable by the Company to Tradener. In the civil public action No. 0000219-78.2003.8.16.0004, filed by the Prosecution Office, a decision has also been rendered ruling on the absence of irregularities in the electric power purchase agreement. Therefore, Tradener brought recovery lawsuits, seeking to receive its commissions. In case record 0005550-26.2012.8.16.0004, the Company was ordered to pay the commission fees due to Tradener in a final and unappealable decision rendered on June 28, 2016. In compliance with judgment, on November 7, 2016, the Company settled the obligation, in the amount of BRL57,116, resulting in the extinction of the proceeding. In case record 0005990.22.2012.8.16.0004, in the judgment rendered on January 27, 2014, the Company was ordered to pay the amount of BRL105,010, which is the value updated by the (INPC/IBGE) from the maturity of the commissions payable to Tradener under the purchase agreement entered into with Celesc, plus default interest of 1% per month, as of the date of notification (October 31, 2012), as well as attorneys' fees. The Company filed an appeal against this decision, however, on November 8, 2016, by majority votes, the Court dismissed the appeal. From this decision, Copel filed an appeal which is pending judgment. Companhia Paranaense de Energia - Copel engages in the generation, transmission, distribution, and sale of electricity to industrial, residential, commercial, rural, and other customers primarily in the State of Parana, Brazil. It was founded in 1954 and is headquartered in Curitiba, Brazil. COVELLI FAMILY: "Leleux" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------ Kelly Leleux, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff(s), v. The Covelli Family Limited Partnership, Covelli Family Limited Partnership II, Covelli Family Limited Partnership III, d/b/a Panera Bread, Defendants, Case No. 6:17-cv-00747 (M.D. Fla., April 26, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime with damages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Covelli is the largest franchisee of Panera Breads bakery products, sandwiches and salads in the country that includes Dairy Queen and O'Charley's stores. Covelli operates nearly 100 locations in Florida alone. Plaintiff worked at their Seminole County as a Catering Coordinator. Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos V. Leach, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 191 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 4200 Post Office Box 57007 Atlanta, GA 30343-1007 Tel: (404) 965-8811 Facsimile: (404) 496-7405 Email: CLeach@forthepeople.com CREDIT CONTROL: "Kaziev" Suit Moved to E.D.N.Y. Federal Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Edward Kaziev and Ester Aronova, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Credit Control Services, Inc., d/b/a Credit Collection Services, the Defendant, Case No. 610151/2016 was removed on April 27, 2017 from the Supreme Court of the State of New York County of Nassau, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-02522 to the proceeding. Credit Control, doing business as credit collection services, provides business process outsourcing solutions for customers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Matthew Brady Johnson, Esq. MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN Wall Street Plaza 88 Pine Street, 21st Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 376 6433 Facsimile: (212) 376 6490 E-mail: mbjohnson@mdwcg.com CREDIT CONTROL: "Lerman" Suit Moved to E.D.N.Y. Federal Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Raymond Lerman, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Credit Control Services, Inc., d/b/a Credit Collection Services, the Defendant, Case No. ______ was removed on April 27, 2017, from the Supreme Court of the State of New York County of Nassau, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-02511 to the proceeding. Credit Control, doing business as credit collection services, provides business process outsourcing solutions for customers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq. 775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255 Huntington, NY 11743 Telephone: (631) 335 1107 E-mail: mpash@verizon.net The Defendant is represented by: Matthew Brady Johnson, Esq. MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN Wall Street Plaza 88 Pine Street, 21st Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 376 6433 Facsimile: (212) 376 6490 E-mail: mbjohnson@mdwcg.com CREDIT CONTROL: "Shields" Suit Moved to E.D.N.Y. Federal Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Shields, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Credit Control Services, Inc., d/b/a Credit Collection Services, the Defendant, Case No. 621045/2016 was removed on April 27, 2017 from the Supreme Court of the State of New York County of Nassau, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-02521 to the proceeding. Credit Control, doing business as credit collection services, provides business process outsourcing solutions for customers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Matthew Brady Johnson, Esq. MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN Wall Street Plaza 88 Pine Street, 21st Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 376 6433 Facsimile: (212) 376 6490 E-mail: mbjohnson@mdwcg.com CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Valdivieso Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit entitled LUIS A. VALDIVIESO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD INC., the Defendant, Case No 8:17-cv-00118-SDM-JSS (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff moves the Court to certify an Improper COBRA Election Notice Class: "all participants and beneficiaries in the Defendant's Health Plan who were sent the COBRA notice by Defendant, during the applicable five-year statute of limitations period as a result of a qualifying event". The Plaintiff moves for certification at this early juncture to ensure compliance with Local Rule 4.04(b), which requires Plaintiff seek class certification within 90 days from the filing of the initial Complaint. Following the mandatory case management conference, the Court's Case Management and Scheduling order was entered on March 15, 2017. Thirteen days later Plaintiff propounded class-wide written discovery on Defendant, both in the form of interrogatories, requests for production, and also provided a corporate representative deposition with designated topics. Defendant's responses are not yet due, nor has a date been set for the deposition of Defendant's corporate representative. Thus, Plaintiff requests permission to supplement this Motion with discovery obtained from Defendant once it becomes due and is provided. In sum, Plaintiff moves for certification to ensure compliance with Local Rule 4.04(b). Once class discovery is obtained, and with the Court's permission, Plaintiff will file an amended motion with greater detail and evidentiary support. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=NJEbRfLw The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224 0431 Facsimile: (813) 229 8712 E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com bhill@wfclaw.com twells@wfclaw.com mk@wfclaw.com - and - Chad A. Justice, Esq. BLACK ROCK TRIAL LAWYERS 201 S Westland Avenue Tampa, FL 33606 Telephone: (813) 254 1777 Facsimile: (813) 254 3999 E-mail: chadjustice@blackrocklaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Merry E. Lindberg, Esq. FORD & HARRISON LLP 1450 Centrepark Blvd., Suite 325 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 - and - Todd S. Aidman, Esq. FORD & HARRISON LLP 101 E. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 900 Tampa, FL 3360 DEMOCRATIC NAT'L: Not Required to be Unbiased bet. Candidates ------------------------------------------------------------- Alberto Luperon at Law Newz reports that a class-action lawsuit by Bernie Sanders supporters against the Democratic National Committee is getting pretty quotable. Plaintiffs accuse the defendants of being biased on behalf of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign. But one DNC lawyer's argument actually tries to justify the party's right to be biased on behalf of one primary candidate over another, according to an article from The Young Turks. In other words, they could have chosen their nominee over cigars in a backroom. That's what the attorney reportedly said in a Florida federal court: "We could have -- and we could have voluntarily decided that, Look, we're gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way. That's not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also been their right. The same lawyer also argued that there is "no contractual obligation" to prevent advantage or disadvantage between candidates, and that the evenhandedness and impartiality language in the DNC charter is not "self-defining." The court would be dragged into a political matter, and wouldn't be able to constitutionally offer redress for the claims. The DNC did not respond to comment by press time, but we will update when they do. Jared Beck and Elizabeth Lee Beck, both Sanders supporters, sued the DNC in June 2016 over the alleged bias for Clinton at the expense of their preferred candidate, an Independent U.S. Senator who ran for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. Article 5, Session 4 of the DNC's charter says that the National Chairperson "shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns," and shall make sure officers and staff also play fair during the nomination process. Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned from her post in July 2016 after emails obtained by WikiLeaks suggested that she and other DNC officials were dismissive, and even antagonistic against the Sanders campaign. [GN] DENVER, CO: Homeless Plaintiffs' Suit Gets Class Action Status -------------------------------------------------------------- Erica Meltzer at Deverite reports that a group of homeless men suing the city of Denver over how it handled their belongings during a series of homeless sweeps last year have been granted class action status. That means the case can be used to determine whether the city's policies violate the rights of homeless people as a group, not just whether these particular people had their rights violated. The class action status applies to injunctive relief -- that is, to any rulings that would force the city to change or suspend its policies -- but not to damages. Those postcards you get in the mail telling you you're part of a class and are entitled to USD10 because of some corporate wrong-doing? There won't be any equivalent to homeless people from the city, even if the plaintiffs prevail. And, in a remarkable passage of the ruling, U.S. District Court Judge William Martinez told attorney Jason Flores-Williams, who is representing the plaintiffs, that while he admires his passion, he really needs to find some co-counsel. Flores-Williams can be a bit flamboyant and lean heavily on rhetoric, as he did when urging jurors in the homeless camping trial to acquit the defendants in spite of the evidence. Class action lawsuits are a little unusual in that they require the judge to decide if the lawyer can actually pull off such a complicated case. And Martinez had his doubts about Flores- Williams. The bad: Flores-Williams cited case law that had been overturned and used rhetoric instead of legal arguments to refute the city's position, particularly when the city had clear case law on its side. The good: Flores-Williams is dedicated to his clients and has succeeded in keeping his clients involved despite the challenging circumstances of their personal lives. "The Court does not fault Mr. Flores-Williams for believing so strongly in the righteousness of his clients' cause," Martinez wrote in the ruling on the class certification. "Much good and important work has been done by lawyers with such deep, authentic commitment. But the Court is genuinely concerned that Mr. Flores- Williams will ultimately do his clients a disservice by failing to take seriously Denver's opposing arguments -- or, more fundamentally, losing sight of the fact that lawsuits are decided based on the facts in evidence and legal authorities, and not on rhetoric." Martinez said Flores-Williams "has already shown substantial and commendable dedication to the undoubtedly difficult task of organizing a potential class of homeless persons. He has developed and demonstrated experience in an area where most lawyers (including most plaintiffs' civil rights lawyers) have none." But Martinez also expressed concerns that Flores-Williams doesn't have the financial resources to see the case through. Those cases that had been overturned would have been flagged if Flores- Williams were using one of several common but expensive databases, and the judge wondered if Flores-Williams was relying on free resources to do his research. He also said Flores-Williams needs to do more to put himself in the city's position -- for his clients' sake. "A lawyer likely has no more dangerous blind spot than an inability to see the case from the opposing point of view -- a paradigmatic example of 'confirmation bias' if there ever was one," Martinez wrote. "A lawyer who cannot imagine losing the case stands a good chance of losing the case. Such a lawyer tends to do what Mr. Flores-Williams does, namely, ignore or quickly pass over the opposing party's specific arguments and instead lean on rhetoric intended to shame the opposing party for choosing to oppose." If Flores-Williams were representing any other group of people, Martinez probably wouldn't appoint him class counsel, he said. Instead, he did appoint him but "strongly encouraged" him to find co-counsel. Flores-Williams said he plans to do that. As for the class certification, Denver tried to argue in court filings that there was no centralized policy of "sweeps," and each instance of enforcement occurred under different circumstances for different reasons. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to litigate how a policy might infringe on the rights of a group of people. Martinez called this "simply wrong." "But, says Denver (citing much of its own evidence), every one of the alleged Sweeps took place under differing circumstances, at the direction of differing authorities, and for different reasons -- so there is no common question that can generate a common answer," Martinez wrote. "Denver is simply wrong on this point." Martinez said that denying the class certification would amount to agreeing with all of Denver's factual assertions before the case is even heard. And the class certification is not supposed to be about the merits of the case, per se. The lawsuit, a civil rights case in federal court, argues that the city has violated the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant, the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, and the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law and due process, by taking the personal belongings of homeless people without a warrant. Flores-Williams said he does take the class certification as a victory because it shows that homeless people can band together to defend their interests and rights in court. "It recognizes that there is this policy of the city of Denver that affects of thousands of persons and now we are going to have the opportunity to prove what a lot of us have known, which is that this policy of sweeps is unjust, immoral and unconstitutional," he said. In a statement, the City Attorney's Office focused on the fact that class certification does not speak to the facts of the case. "Today's ruling had nothing to do with the merits of the Plaintiffs' claims, which the city has shown to be unsupported," the city said in a statement. "The city remains confident in its legal position in the case, that its clean-up efforts were consistent with due process and that it will eventually prevail on the merits." City officials reiterated their long-standing position that there is a strong public interest in keeping sidewalks and other areas free of encumbrances and that law enforcement interactions with homeless people help connect people to services. "The city and county of Denver spends nearly USD50 million a year on direct and indirect homeless services," the statement said. "In the last several years, the city has increased direct services, including overnight and day shelter services as well as increased access to housing for all people. Our focus is on connecting people who are on the streets to the individualized assistance needed to help them stabilize their lives and move forward. The city's practice is to first try and connect people to services and treatment, and if that doesn't work, people are given notice, usually multiple times, before any enforcement action is taken. These are complex challenges, and we strive to be as compassionate as possible while also ensuring safety and public health for all Denver residents." [GN] DIRECT ENERGY: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Richards" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Gary W. Richards filed an appeal from a District Court's ruling and judgment, both dated March 31, 2017, in the lawsuit styled Richards v. Direct Energy Services, LLC, Case No. 14-cv- 1724, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 19, 2017, the Hon. Victor A. Bolden entered an order denying class certification and denying summary judgment. The appellate case is captioned as Richards v. Direct Energy Services, LLC, Case No. 17-1003, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Gary W. Richards, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Robert A. Izard, Jr., Esq. IZARD NOBEL LLP 29 South Main Street West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 493-6292 Facsimile: (860) 493-6290 E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com Defendant-Appellee Direct Energy Services, LLC, is represented by: Hutson Brit Smelley, Esq. EDISON MCDOWELL & HETHERINGTON LLP First City Tower 1001 Fannin Street Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 337-5580 Facsimile: (713) 333-5984 E-mail: hutson.smelley@emhllp.com DNC SERVICES: Court Hears Arguments on Bid to Dismiss Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dawn Papple at Inquisitr reports that the past week marks another step for the class action suit against the DNC and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. Senior Judge William J. Zloch heard oral arguments pertaining to the DNC's Motion to Dismiss request. The DNC was trying to argue that the class action lawsuit against them "fails to allege any claims upon which relief may be granted as a matter of law." So, for over three and a half hours, Judge Zloch heard oral arguments from both sides as to whether or not the case should even be allowed to move forward. Jared Beck, representing the plaintiffs called the courtroom discussions "serious" and "intense" and relayed to the public that the judge came prepared. Beck said that the senior judge did not actually issue a ruling from the bench on whether or not the class action lawsuit against the DNC and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz will move forward, but he indicated that the senior judge would issue a written ruling within a reasonable period of time. That time frame is not currently known. Beck relayed on Twitter that he expects the transcripts from the almost four-hour-long hearing to be available for the public to read on April 28. The class action suit is known as Wilding et al. v. DNC Services Corp. and Deborah "Debbie" Wasserman-Schultz class action and is case number 16-cv-61511-WJZ. The lawsuit is being handled by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Judge William J. Zloch is a senior federal judge for the United States District Court serving the Southern District of Florida. Zloch joined the federal court after being nominated by President Ronald Reagan and assumed senior status this past January. In an interview with Sun Sentinel, Zloch reportedly declined to discuss his own political opinions, but he did praise Supreme Court of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, a conservative. Since taking the bench, Zloch has generally been considered "a conservative judge with a reputation for giving stiff sentences," according to Sun Sentinel. Bernie Sanders' former primary supporters make up a majority of the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit against the DNC. Beck was also interviewed for a Real Progressives live interview. The class action lawsuit alleges that the leaders within the Democratic Party, including Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, disproportionately elevated Hillary Clinton during the 2016 Democratic presidential nominating elections. It alleges that the DNC gave preferential treatment to Clinton over Sen. Bernie Sanders while presenting itself as a neutral political organization. The class action lawsuit alleges that the DNC violated its own rules on neutrality. The lawsuit was filed in the summer of 2016, which was over a month before the DNC emails were leaked by WikiLeaks. The emails seemed to show actions taken by some leaders within the organization to reduce Sanders' popularity and elevate Clinton's campaign starting before the first primary or caucus vote was ever cast. WikiLeaks presented very strong evidence to support the plaintiffs' claims. For example, the leaked emails even revealed that DNC officials knew that chairs hadn't been thrown at the Nevada Convention by Bernie Sanders delegates, but the DNC still reportedly tried to seed a Ralston article claiming that it had happened, because important nominating elections were happening that week and every liberal vote mattered. The Observer explained the DNC's defense in another compelling editorial by Michael Sainato. "So far in court, the DNC's lawyers haven't refuted that the primaries were rigged, but in their motion to dismiss, they argued that some Sanders supporters cited in the class action lawsuit posted on social media during the primaries that the Democratic Party was favoring Clinton. The lawyers have also argued that neutrality is just a political promise that the DNC should not be bound to keeping." The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Jared Beck and Elizabeth Lee. They intend to argue that Wasserman-Schultz and the DNC staff overtly violated the DNC's own rules. Article four, section five of the DNC Charter states, "The Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness between the Presidential candidates and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process." Whether or not the plaintiff's lawyers will be able to argue the case against the DNC will depend on how the judge rules on the Motion to Dismiss. Let us know in the comments below whether or not you think the judge should hear the case against the DNC. [GN] DR PEPPER: Lawyers Say Consumers Fail to Support False Ad Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rachel Graf at Law360 reports Dr. Pepper Snapple Group Inc. urged a California federal judge on April 27 to toss a putative class action brought by consumers accusing the beverage maker of falsely advertising that its Canada Dry ginger ale contains ginger, saying the consumers fail to support their claims. Dr Pepper said in its motion to dismiss that the consumers wrongly inferred labels saying the product is "made with real ginger" meant the drink contains a "detectable amount" of real ginger, and consequently based their lawsuit on laboratory tests disproving a claim that Dr Pepper says it never made. "Plaintiffs' entire theory of falsity rests on a single-sentence conclusion that some never-identified 'independent laboratory' tested some unspecified beverage, in a never-disclosed way at a never-alleged time, and told someone (counsel?) that he/she/it could not 'detect' whatever amount of ginger plaintiffs individually expected," Dr Pepper argues. The consumers claim they overpaid for the beverage based on labels and commercials that state the product is "made from real ginger," which the consumers wrongly believed indicated the products contained a "detectable amount" of ginger, Dr Pepper argues. The entire suit centers around the consumers' belief that saying Canada Dry ginger ale is "made from real ginger" is misleading, but fails to prove the product is not in fact "made from real ginger" and should therefore be thrown out, Dr Pepper claims. "Defendants represented, truthfully, that Canada Dry ginger ale is made from real ginger, i.e., that ginger is used in the creation of the product (specifically, in creation of the 'natural flavor' that is disclosed on the label as an ingredient)," the motion says. The consumers are unlikely to repurchase the drinks after admitting they originally bought the products under a false pretense, giving them no basis for injunctive and declaratory relief, Dr Pepper argues. The consumers' claim that they would repurchase the drink if it were reformulated is "errant speculation about potential product changes (not a 'reasonable likelihood'), and in any event, makes no sense," the motion says. Additionally, the consumers fail to include other important details in the complaint, such as the amount they paid for the product and specifics about when and how much of the product they purchased, Dr Pepper says. The consumers are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, restitution, compensatory damages, statutory and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. Earlier this month, a California federal judge kept alive a similar putative class action against Dr Pepper that alleges a group of consumers would not have purchased Canada Dry ginger ale had they known it didn't contain real ginger. "Canada Dry Ginger Ale has 100% natural flavors, including natural flavor made from real ginger. We stand by the claims we make on our products and believe this copycat lawsuit is without merit," Dr Pepper Snapple representative Chris Barnes said in an email. Counsel for the consumers and Dr Pepper did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Dr Pepper is represented by Jonathan A. Shapiro -- jonathan.shapiro@bakerbotts.com -- Van H. Beckwith -- van.beckwith@bakerbotts.com -- and Jessica E. Underwood -- Jessica.underwood@bakerbotts.com -- of Baker Botts LLP. The consumers are represented by Barbara A. Rohr -- brohr@faruqilaw.com -- and Benjamin Heikali -- bheikali@faruqilaw.com -- of Faruqi & Faruqi LLP. The suit is Arash Hashemi et al. v. Dr Pepper Snapple Group Inc et al., case number 4:17-cv-02341 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN] ERIK FREESE: Faces "Lewis" Suit in Northern District of Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Erik Freese. The case is titled as Joshua W. Lewis, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Erik Freese, in his official capacity only, and Victoria Calabrese, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-50129 (N.D. Ill., Apr. 28, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Philip G. Reinhard.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. ESCALLATE LLC: Faces "Molina" Suit in Middle District of Florida ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Escallate LLC. The case is captioned as Araceli Molina, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Escallate LLC, Case No. 8:17-cv-00999-JSM-MAP (M.D. Fla., Apr. 28, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge James S. Moody, Jr. Escallate LLC is a collection agency located in North Canton, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron D. Radbil, Esq. James L. Davidson, Esq. Jesse S. Johnson, Esq. Michael L. Greenwald, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL, PLLC 5550 Glades Rd. Ste 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 826 5477 Facsimile: (561) 961 5684 E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com EUREKA, CA: Judge Narrows Claims in "Cobine" -------------------------------------------- Hunter Cresswell at Times Standard reports that U.S. District Court Northern District of California Judge Jeffrey S. White issued an order April 25 granting motions to dismiss three of four claims for relief in Cobine v. City of Eureka which centers around the May 2016 Palco Marsh evictions. The attorney that filed the claim will now possibly seek damages from the city through a class-action lawsuit on behalf of the evicted people. "We're seeking damages for basically violating the Eighth Amendment rights of the 100-plus people that were wrongfully evicted," attorney Peter Martin said. " ... I don't think we've agreed on an amount yet." Eureka City Attorney Cyndy Day-Wilson, Esq. -- cityattorney@ci.eureka.ca.gov -- said in an email that Martin previously told this to the city. "The city believes that plaintiffs will have a difficult uphill legal battle to obtain class certification," she said of the next step need to pursue the class-action suit. White denied the city's motion to dismiss a claim that the plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment rights were violated and granted the city's motion to dismiss claims that the plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights to privacy and right to due process were violated. The Eight Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment and the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Martin, a Eureka-based attorney, filed the suit on behalf of 11 individuals living in the Palco Marsh behind the Bayshore Mall in Eureka ahead of the eviction. They are Stacy Cobine, Nanette Dean, Christina Ruble, Lloyd Parker, Gerrianne Schulze, Sarah Hood, Aaron Kangas, Lynette Vera, Aubrey Short, Marie Anntonette Kinder and John Travis. At least two of the plaintiffs lived at the city- sanctioned nighttime sleeping areas following the expulsion. Martin said he had yet to get in touch with all the plaintiffs to notify them of the decision. "I was generally pleased with the decision," he said. "Our Eighth Amendment claim, which is really the heart of the case, the judge agreed with." "Plaintiffs argue that criminalizing public camping in a city without adequate shelter space to accommodate the city's homeless population constitutes the criminalization of homelessness itself, in violation of the Eighth Amendment," White's ruling states. " ... However, without a developed factual record and based solely on the representations made in the complaint which at this procedural posture must be taken as true, the court finds that a determination on the viability of an Eighth Amendment challenge to Eureka city ordinance is premature." White further states, "It does not appear from the allegations in the current complaint that a state action is responsible for the alleged privacy intrusions compelled by the specific restrictions and conditions enforced by the alternative shelters offered to plaintiffs." Eureka city attorney Cyndy Day-Wilson in an email said the city filed the motion to dismiss in September 2016. "The city is pleased with the court's ruling," she said. Martin said this was Eureka's second attempt to dismiss the Eighth Amendment claim. "I think the next step is filing a motion of class certification," he said. Getting a court to approve that motion would make it a class- action lawsuit, Martin said. "That's our next step in moving forward," he said. [GN] EXPRESS COURIER: "Harris" Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JAMES HARRIS, RICK KETCHAM and ADAM MANSKE, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the PLAINTIFFS, v. EXPRESS COURIER INTERNATIONAL, INC., the DEFENDANT, Case No. 5:16-cv-05033-TLB (W.D. Ark.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to conditionally certify a class of: "each individual who (a) worked for Express Courier International, Inc. (Express), as a driver, courier, or owner- operator in Arkansas any time after February 11, 2013, (b) never subcontracted with anyone, or otherwise never hired anyone, to perform any of his or her work for Express, and (c) contracted directly with Express under Express's standard Owner-Operator Agreement". The Plaintiffs, former delivery drivers (also known as "couriers" and "Owner-Operators") for Defendant Express Courier International, Inc., brought this suit individually and on behalf of all other current and certain former delivery drivers who worked for Defendant, who are similarly situated, in order to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA). The Plaintiff also brought this action to recover the same relief under the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Mfmfnmvj The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua West, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221 0088 Facsimile: (888) 787 2040 E-mail: west@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Kerri E. Kobbeman, Esq. CONNER & WINTERS, LLP 4375 N. Vantage Dr., Ste. 405 Fayetteville, AR 72703 Telephone: (479) 582 5711 Facsimile: (479) 587 1426 E-mail: KKobbeman@cwlaw.com - and - Andrew Butcher, Esq. Adam C. Smedstad, Esq. Emily A. Quillen, Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C. 1850 M Street, N.W., Suite 280 Washington, DC 20036-5804 Telephone: (202) 551 9030 Facsimile: (202) 296 9433 E-mail: abutcher@scopelitis.com asmedstad@scopelitis.com equillen@scopelitis.com EXTERIOR DESIGNS: "Navarro" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------- JOSE NAVARRO, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. EXTERIOR DESIGNS & LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC659659 (Cal. Super. Ct., Apr. 28, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages (including double minimum wages), liquidated damages in an amount equal to the minimum wages unlawfully unpaid, interest and reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to California Labor Code. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants' violation of California law, Employees have suffered damages. As a result of Defendants' violations of the minimum wage by failing to record and pay minimum wage for all hours worked, Defendants violated California Labor Code by inaccurately stating gross wages earned, total hours worked, deductions, net wages, gross wages, and other issues as described above. Defendants also violated California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders. From at least four-years prior to the filing of this lawsuit and continuing to the present. Exterior Designs provides services from plan development, with attention to detail with hands on approach.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hugo E. Gamez, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF HUGO GAMEZ 1999 Avenue of The Stars, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 442 0623 Facsimile: (310) 693 2538 E-mail: Hugo@hgamezlaw.com FASHION NOVA: "Rosillo" Suit Seeks Premium Wages Under Labor Code ----------------------------------------------------------------- CARMEN ROSILLO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FASHION NOVA, INC.; a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC659644 (Cal. Super. Ct., Apr. 28, 2017), seeks to recover premium wages for missed meal and rest periods, penalties, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under Labor Code and California Code of Regulations. For at least four years prior to the filing of the action and continuing to the present, the Defendants have had an alleged consistent policy of failing to provide Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees or former employees within the State of California 30 minute uninterrupted meal period for days on which the employees worked more than five hours in a work day and a second 30 minute uninterrupted meal period for days on which employees worked in excess of ten hours in a work day, and failing to provide compensation for such unprovided meal periods as required by California wage and hour laws; failing to provide rest periods of at least ten minutes per four hours worked or major fraction, and failing to provide compensation for such unprovided rest periods as required by California wage and hour laws; and failing to pay full amount of wages upon termination and/or resignation. Fashion Nova is a top online fashion store for women.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Nourmand, Esq. THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC 8822 West Olympic Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 553 0600 Facsimile: (310) 553 3603 - and - Mehrdad Bokhpur, Esq. BIBIYAN & BOKHOUR, P.C. 287 S. Robertson Blvd., Suite 303 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 438 5555 Facsimile: (310) 300 1705 FLINT, MI: MDEQ Defendants Appeal Ruling in "Nappier" Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Stephen Busch, Patrick Cook, Michael Prysby, Liane Shekter Smith, Bradley Wurfel and Daniel Wyant filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Tamara Nappier v. Richard Snyder, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00636, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids. The appellate case is captioned as Tamara Nappier v. Richard Snyder, et al., Case No. 17-1401, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Richard Snyder is the Governor of Michigan. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 13, 2017, Judge Gordin J. Quist remanded the case. The Plaintiff filed the putative class action case in the Michigan Court of Claims on March 23, 2016, against Richard Snyder, Nick Lyon, Eden Wells, Nancy Peeler, and Robert Scott (State defendants), Stephen Busch, Patrick Cook, Michael Prysby, Liane Shekter Smith, and Bradley Wurfel and Darnell Early (MDEQ defendants) and Gerald Ambrose. As a cost-saving measure, the City of Flint switched its water source from the City of Detroit water system to the Flint River. In connection with the switch, officials discontinued corrosion- control treatments required by the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) and added ferric chloride, which increased the corrosivity of the Flint River water, to reduce formation of trihalomethanes from organic matter. Plaintiff Tamara Nappier, the mother and next friend of T.K., a minor, alleges that defendants knew that the water pumped from the Flint River was toxic and not fit for consumption, but nonetheless assured the public that it was safe to drink. The Plaintiff further alleges that, in spite of defendants' assurances, T.K. experienced an elevated blood lead level and suffered permanent brain damage as a result of drinking water from the Flint River. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were grossly negligent and/or negligent in participating in, or facilitating, the switch to Flint River water as the source of the City of Flint's water. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all individuals who were minors, resided in the City of Flint, and suffered brain damage as a result of ingesting water supplied from the Flint River.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee TAMARA NAPPIER, as mother and next friend of Takarie Nappier, a minor child, on behalf of Takarie Nappier and a class of all others similarly situated, Takarie Nappier, is represented by: Elizabeth C. Thomson, Esq. HERTZ SCHRAM PC 1760 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 300 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 Telephone: (248) 335-5000 Facsimile: (248) 335-3346 E-mail: lthomson@hertzschram.com Defendants-Appellants DANIEL WYANT and BRADLEY WURFEL, individually and in their official capacities, are represented by: Michael John Pattwell, Esq. CLARK HILL PLC 212 E. Grand River Avenue Lansing, MI 48906 Telephone: (517) 318-3100 E-mail: mpattwell@clarkhill.com Defendant-Appellant LIANE SHEKTER SMITH is represented by: Thaddeus E. Morgan, Esq. FRASER TREBILCOCK DAVIS & DUNLAP PC 124 W. Allegan Street, Suite 1000 Lansing, MI 48933 Telephone: (517) 482-5800 E-mail: tmorgan@fraserlawfirm.com Defendant-Appellant STEPHEN BUSCH is represented by: Philip A. Grashoff, Jr., Esq. KOTZ SANGSTER WYSOCKI PC 36700 Woodward Avenue, Suite 300 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Telephone: (248) 646-2073 E-mail: pgrashoff@kotzsangster.com Defendants-Appellants PATRICK COOK and MICHAEL PRYSBY are represented by: Charles Edward Barbieri, Esq. FOSTER SWIFT COLLINS & SMITH PC 313 S. Washington Square Lansing, MI 48933 Telephone: (517) 371-8100 E-mail: CBarbieri@fosterswift.com FOUGERA PHARMA: Louisiana Health Hits Overpriced Clobetasol ----------------------------------------------------------- Louisiana Health Service Indemnity Company d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield Of Louisiana and HMO Louisiana, Inc., Plaintiff v. Fougera Pharmaceuticals Inc., Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc., Perrigo Co. PLC, Perrigo Company, Perrigo New York, Inc., Sandoz, Inc., Taro Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Wockhardt USA LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01883, (E.D. Pa., April 25, 2017), seeks, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated indirect purchasers of generic Clobetasol, to recover treble damages, costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees resulting from overcharging of clobetasol propionate topical ointment in violation of the Sherman Act and Clayton Act. Clobetasol is a high-potency prescription corticosteroid used in the treatment of various skin disorders including eczema, psoriasis, dermatitis and vitiligo. It is reportedly one of the most prescribed dermatological drugs in the United States. Louisiana Health Service and Indemnity Company operates as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana and is a domestic health insurance corporation licensed to provide health benefits to covered members, insurance benefits, third party administrative services and manages health care services for its members. Fougera Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in Melville, New York. Fougera is a specialty dermatology generic pharmaceutical company that markets and sells generic fluocinonide throughout the United States. Fougera is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Sandoz, Inc., a Colorado corporation with its principal place of business in Princeton, New Jersey. It deals in generic pharmaceuticals and bio-similars and is a subsidiary of Defendant Novartis AG. Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc., a subsidiary of Akorn, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Amityville, New York. It markets and sells Clobetasol throughout the United States. Perrigo Company PLC is incorporated under the laws of Ireland with its principal place of business in Dublin, Ireland. Perrigo's North American base of operations is located at 515 Eastern Avenue, Allegan, Michigan 49010, where Perrigo's domestic subsidiaries are pharmaceuticals manufacturers. Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in Hawthorne, New York. It is an owned subsidiary of Taro Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. Wockhardt Ltd., an international pharmaceutical and biotechnology company headquartered in Mumbai, India, manufactures, markets and sells generic drugs, including Clobetasol, throughout the United States. Wockhardt maintains manufacturing plants and substantial operations in the United States, including its wholly-owned subsidiary Morton Grove Pharmaceuticals, Inc., through which it sold Clobetasol products to customers in the United States. Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Dugan, II, Esq. Douglas Robert Plymale, Esq. David S. Scalia, Esq. Lance Bordelon, Esq. Mekel Smith Alvarez, Esq. DUGAN LAW FIRM LLC 365 Canal St., Ste. 1000 New Orleans, LA 70130 Tel: (504) 648-0180 Fax: (504) 648-0181 Email: jdugan@dugan-lawfirm.com dscalia@dugan-lawfirm.com dplymale@dugan-lawfirm.com lbordelon@dugan-lawfirm.com mekel@dugan-lawfirm.com FOX RESTAURANT: "Watt" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ BRITTANY MICHELLE WATT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FOX RESTAURANT VENTURE, LLC, and FOX NC ACQUISITION, LLC and FOX SC ACQUISITION, LLC, the Defendants Case No. 2:17-cv-02104-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill., Apr. 28, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for Plaintiff and other current and former Assistant Managers or Assistant Store Managers, who worked more than 40 hours in any workweek at any Jimmy John's store owned by Franchisee, between April 27, 2014, and the date of judgment in this matter. Consistent with the Defendants' policy, pattern and/or practice, Plaintiff and ASMs regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek without being paid overtime wages, in violation of the FLSA. The Plaintiff worked an average of 70 hours per workweek. Plaintiff sometimes worked 75 hours per workweek. The Defendants are doing business in the investors industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth C. Chavez, Esq. Kathleen Currie Chavez, Esq. FOOTE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ & O'NEIL, LLC Matthew Herman, Esq. 10 West State Street, Suite No. 200 Geneva, IL 60134 Telephone: (630) 232 7450 Facsimile: (630) 232 7452 - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Alan Quiles, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 1515 S. Federal Highway Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 447 8888 Facsimile: (561) 447 8831 - and - Justin M. Swartz, Esq. Michael N. Litrownik, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN, LLP 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 245 1000 Facsimile: (212) 977 4005 - and - Douglas M. Werman, Esq. WERMAN SALAS, P.C. 77 West Washington Street, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419 1008 Facsimile: (312) 419 1025 - and - Drew Legando, Esq. Jack Landskroner, Esq. LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN, LLC 1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 522 9000 Facsimile: (216) 522 9007 - and - Myron M. Cherry, Esq. MYRON M. CHERRY & ASSOCIATES, LLC 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2300 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 372 2100 Facsimile: (312) 853 0279 - and - Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Fran L. Rudich, Esq. Jason Conway, Esq. Christopher M. Timmel, Esq. KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER, LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934 9200 Facsimile: (914) 934 9220 FRESENIUS MEDICAL: "Roldan" Suit Seeks Premium Wages ---------------------------------------------------- MARITER ROLDAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE NORTH AMERICA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Delaware limited partnership; BIO- MEDICAL APPLICATIONS OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a Delaware corporation; RENAL ADVANTAGE INC., a Delaware corporation; FRESENIUS MEDICAL CAREEUCALYPTUS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE GOLDENWEST, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC659479 (Cal. Super. Ct., Jan. , 2017), seeks to recover overtime wages, premium wages for missed meal and rest periods, penalties, reimbursements, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Labor Code. For at least four years prior to the filing of this action and continuing to the present, Defendants have had an alleged consistent policy or practice of failing to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees in the State of California in violation of California state wage and hour laws as a result of, without limitation, Plaintiff and similarly situated employees routinely working over eight hours per day or 40 hours per week without being properly compensated for hours worked in excess of hours per day or 40 hours per week due to, among other things, failing to include all forms of remuneration to calculate the regular rate of pay for overtime purposes to the detriment of Plaintiff and similarly situated employees. The Defendants also failed to provide 30 minute uninterrupted meal period for days on which the employees worked more than five hours in a work day and a second 30-minute uninterrupted meal period for days on which employees worked in excess of 10 hours in a work day, and failing to provide compensation for such unprovided meal periods as required by California wage and hour laws. Fresenius Medical is a health care company focused on delivering the highest quality care to people with renal.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Nourmand, Esq. THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC 8822 West Olympic Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 553 3600 Facsimile: (310) 553 3603 - and - David D. Bibiyan, Esq. BIBIYAN & BOKHOUR, P.C. 287 South Robertson Blvd., Ste. 303 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 438 5555 Facsimile: (310) 300 1705 GARDENS ON THE BAY: "Adler" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Damages ------------------------------------------------------------ Ramon Manuel Adler a/k/a Ramon Manuel Adler Aday, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Gardens on the Bay Owners Association, Inc., Marta Alvarez, Julie M. Gonzalez, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-21544, (S.D. Fla., April 25, 2017), seeks double damages and reasonable attorney fees from Defendants, jointly and severally, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, for all overtime wages still owing from Plaintiff's entire employment. Gardens of the Bay Owners Association is a homeowners' association of a condominium complex located at 6484 Indian Creek Drive, Miami Beach where Adler worked for Defendants as a maintenance worker. Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Tel: (305) 865-6766 Fax: (305) 865-7167 Email: zabogado@aol.com GENPACT SERVICES: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned CARLOS BEAUFRAND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. GENPACT SERVICES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00538 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class, appointing the Plaintiff as its representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3YLyT0Ws The Plaintiff is represented by: Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Denise L. Morris, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482 8000 Facsimile: (414) 482 8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com dmorris@ademilaw.com GUILLERMO PRADO: "Ledo" Claims Overtime Pay, Missed Breaks ---------------------------------------------------------- Cesar Ledo, Miguel Ledo, Ricardo Choy Morey and Putative Plaintiffs v. Guillermo Prado and Maria Prado d/b/a Dona Maria, Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-02393 (E.D. Pa., April 26, 2017), seeks compensatory damages for unpaid overtime wages, restitution of unpaid overtime pay, equitable and injunctive relief under California Business and Professions Code including but not limited to equitable accounting of all Plaintiffs work hours and overtime wages owed, waiting time penalty damages of thirty days wages to Plaintiffs, damages and penalties for not providing pay statements, pre-judgment interest of 10% on the unpaid overtime compensation and unpaid salaries and reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit pursuant to California Labor Code. Plaintiffs worked at Defendants' restaurant "Dona Maria," bussing tables, prepping food to be served, cleaning the restaurant, washing dishes and cooking. Plaintiff is represented by: James Dal Bon, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES DAL BON 606 N. 1ST St. San Jose, CA 95112 Tel: (408) 466-5845 HARBOR FREIGHT: Misrepresents Solar Kit Wattage, Morgan Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- RANDY MORGAN, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS USA, INC., a Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. BC659641 (Cal. Super. Ct., Apr. 28, 2017), seeks to recover damages for Defendant's violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act. In the spring and early summer of 2016, Plaintiff purchased three Thunderbolt Magnum Solar 45 Watt Solar Panel 10 Piece Kits at of Defendant's Portland Oregon locations. The Plaintiff paid approximately $140.00 for each of the products. The Plaintiff relied on the representation that the Solar Panel Kit was capable of generating 45 watts of electricity. Had Plaintiff known that the Solar Panel Kit was not capable of generating more than 29 watts of electricity, he would have not purchased it or would not have paid as much as he did for it. As a result of his reliance on the wattage misrepresentation, Plaintiff has lost money and suffered injury in a manner similar to other purchasers of the Solar Panel Kit. Harbor Freight sells a line of solar panel kits and connectors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Barbara A. Rohr, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (424) 256 2884 Facsimile: (424) 256 2885 E-mail: brohr@faruqilaw.com HARRIS COUNTY: Judge Says Bail System Unfair to Indigent People --------------------------------------------------------------- Gabrielle Banks at the Houston Chronicle reports a federal judge in Houston on April 28 issued a scathing denouncement of Harris County's cash bail system, saying it is fundamentally unfair to detain indigent people arrested for low-level offenses simply because they can't afford to pay bail. In a 193-page ruling released on April 28, Chief U.S. District Judge Lee H. Rosenthal ordered the county to begin releasing indigent inmates as early as May 15 without posting cash bail while they are awaiting trial on misdemeanor offenses. "Liberty is precious to Americans and any deprivation must be scrutinized," the order states, citing a comment from Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Nathan L. Hecht. The ruling -- a temporary action that will stay in place until the lawsuit is resolved -- will not apply to those charged with felonies, or those who are being detained on other charges or holds. First Assistant County Attorney Robert Soard said late April 28 that officials are reviewing the orders. "No decision has been made at this time concerning an appeal of the preliminary injunction," he said. District Attorney Kim Ogg and County Commissioner Rodney Ellis -- both of whom filed statements of support with the court for the lawsuit -- praised the ruling. "This is a watershed moment in Harris County criminal-justice history," Ogg said in a statement late April 28. "From now on, people can't be held in jail awaiting trial on low-level offenses, just because they are too poor to make bail. ... We welcome the ruling and will comply fully with it." Ellis said he was pleased with the ruling. "Harris County's bail system is unconstitutionally discriminatory and morally indefensible -- and we now have a federal court ruling telling us so," Ellis said in an email. "It's time for us to fix a broken justice system that favors the privileged and punishes the poor for being poor." The ruling came five weeks came after a lengthy, high-profile hearing in which more than a dozen witnesses took the stand, including several judges and Sheriff Ed Gonzalez. Monetary bonds have been used for generations across the country to ensure people arrested by police return for court dates, and several jurisdictions around the country have begun to rethink how bail should be set. The ruling came five weeks came after a lengthy hearing in which more than a dozen witnesses took the stand, including several judges and Gonzalez. The lawsuit was filed last year by two civil rights group -- Texas Fair Defense Project and Civil Rights Corps -- and local law firm Susman Godfrey law firm on behalf of Maranda Odonnell, a single mother who was held for two days on a charge of driving without a valid license because she couldn't afford the USD2,500 bail. The suit names top county officials and a string of judges and hearing officers. Similar lawsuits filed on behalf of two other people were merged into the case in August. The ruling notes that the case is "difficult and complex," and is among many similar cases filed across the country challenging bail practices. The order notes that the judge reviewed "many hours of footage" from 2,300 recordings of misdemeanor probable cause hearings that were placed into evidence. The ruling cites two videos as being "illustrative" of the problems face by misdemeanor defendants. In one case, a man whose criminal history was wrongly calculated by the hearing officer eventually pleaded guilty to gain release. In another, the hearing officer laughed and made a "wisecrack" that he felt better that the man was returning to jail. The ruling also cites reports showing that of the 50,000 people arrested in Harris County on Class A or Class B misdemeanors in 2015, fewer than 10 percent were released on unsecured personal bonds. She concluded that even if hearing officers were not acting deliberately, the county had been using money bail as a form of preventive detention. Gonzalez, through a spokesman, said his office would immediately start looking into how to implement the order. The sheriff also filed court papers indicating he supports an end to costly bail for indigent defendants. The ruling drew praise from others pushing for change to the bail system. "It's my hope this decision and decisions like it will eradicate the notion of wealth-based detention from our legal system," said Alec Karakatsanis, of the Civil Rights Corp. Neal Manne, a managing partner at Susman Godfrey, which is donating its services, said the judge recognized the crushing impact that cash bail can have on poor people. "We showed in effect the money bail system was being used to achieve something the Texas Constitution does not permit," Manne said. Christina Swarns, head of litigation for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund in New York, likewise praised the ruling. "One's punishment should fit their crime, not their bank account," Swarns said. "Harris County's bail practices unlawfully create a cycle of poverty for those who cannot afford the cost of their freedom." Tarsha Jackson, the criminal justice director for the Texas Organizing Project, urged the county to not challenge the ruling. "Harris County would do right to accept the judge's ruling and not appeal. Unfortunately, we expect an appeal," Jackson said. The judge indicated on April 28 she would rule on the legality of the current system before July 1. Harris County has already spent more than USD2 million fighting the lawsuit, and recently hired an additional attorney to help with appeals. Soard said the county had retained veteran D.C. appellate lawyer Charles Cooper to represent the interests of 15 county criminal court of law judges who oppose the lawsuit. Cooper will advise whether the judges should appeal the ruling. The remaining court of law judge testified at the injunction hearing that although he is a defendant in the lawsuit, he supports changing the way bail is issued. The remaining defendants for the county have appellate counsel from the firms who will review the question of an appeal, he said. [GN] HD SUPPLY: Court Wants Settlement Approval Bid Revised ------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled Jonathan Weisberg, the Plaintiff v. HD Supply, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-08248-FMO-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. District Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order denying without prejudice Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement and certification of settlement class. No later than May 22, 2017, the amended motion for preliminary approval of class action shall be filed. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=iZNEiiob The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 9171 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 400 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (424) 285 6006 The Defendant is represented by: Alexander H. Cote, Esq. SCHEPER KIM & HARRIS LLP One Bunker Hill 601 West Fifth Street, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-2025 Telephone: (213) 613 4660 Facsimile: (213) 613 4656 HODGSON MILL: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss False Advertising Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pam Wright at Madison St. Clair Record reports that a U.S. District Court has denied a request by Hodgson Mill Inc. to dismiss a lawsuit filed by an Illinois woman alleging that the grain and baking products company falsely advertised its products as having all-natural ingredients. Shannah Burton filed the original complaint on behalf of herself and others with the St. Clair County Circuit Court in February 2016, alleging that the company's Hodgson Mill buckwheat pancake mix that she purchased, which claimed to contain all-natural ingredients, misled her and others, thus violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The action was later removed to federal court. Hodgson Mill made the request in light of the number of class members, which could easily exceed 100 persons, and because the amount sought by the plaintiff exceeds USD5 million. Burton's lawyers did not contest the motion. According to the complaint, Burton claims the product she purchased that was labeled "all natural" contained the synthetic ingredient monocalcium phosphate, among other non-natural ingredients. She further noted that had she known the mix was not all-natural as she assumed by the labeling, she wouldn't have purchased the mix. The defendant has moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing, among other things, that Burton could not sue for harm from products she does not plan to buy from the company in the future, as Burton was seeking injunctive relief. The count seeking injunctive relief was, in fact, the only one of 12 arguments to dismiss that was granted by the court. The defendant also argues that the "plaintiff's claims fail because no reasonable consumer would have been deceived by the product packaging bearing the 'all natural' labeling" and that "the presence of a complete ingredients list on the packaging defeats any claim of labeling misrepresentation." The defendant further argues that the company's product guarantee, which offers a refund if a customer is not satisfied, defeats Burton's claim, and that the case should be dismissed until the Food and Drug Administration announces a uniform definition of the term "all natural." In response, Burton's attorneys said they would file an amended complaint naming each class member, along with the particular product purchased by each individual. On the other grounds for dismissal cited by the defendant, District Court Judge Michael J. Reagan ruled that the case should proceed, noting that many of the issues cited by the defendant should proceed to a jury trial. "This court finds that the crux of this issue is a reasonable person's interpretation of the various labels and representations on a given product -- thus, this question is best left for the jury," Reagan wrote in his April 6 ruling. [GN] HOWARD HUGHES: Picasso Seeks to Block Vote On Share Purchase ------------------------------------------------------------ James Picasso, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders of The Howard Hughes Corporation, Plaintiff, v. William Ackman, Adam Flatto, Jeffrey Furber, Allen Model, R. Scot Sellers, Steven Shepsman, Burton Tansky, Mary Ann Tighe and David Weinreb, Defendants, Case 2017-0304 (Del. Ch., April 20, 2017) seeks to enjoin, preliminarily, any vote on CEO Weinreb's attempt to purchase shares. The lawsuit asserts a violation of the Securities and Exchange Act, and breach of fiduciary duties. It seeks an award of attorneys, accountants and experts' fees and such other and further relief as is just and equitable. Howard Hughes Corp. owns, manages and develops commercial, residential and mixed-use real estate throughout the United States. Howard Hughes' properties include master planned communities, operating properties, development opportunities and other unique assets spanning fourteen states from New York to Hawaii. Hughes Corp. CEO David Weinreb is soliciting stockholder approval for the issuance of a warrant that will grant him the right to purchase up to a maximum of 2.5 million shares in exchange for $50 million. Plaintiff, a stockholder, seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on this move unless and until the Board determines and discloses the exercise price, value and number of shares to be issued. Plaintiff is represented by: Peter B. Andrews, Esq. Craig J. Springer, Esq. David M. Sborz, Esq. ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC 3801 Kennett Pike Building C, Suite 305 Wilmington, DE 19807 Tel: (302) 504-4957 ILLINOIS: "Koss" Suit Seeks Certification of Two Classes -------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned ALMA KOSS; WANDA WENTE, by and through her next friend Virginia Hartman; MARY SMALL, by and through her next friend Brian Small; LESSIE HARRIS, by and through her next friend Opal Acklin; and BERTA CHRISTMAN; individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. FELICIA F. NORWOOD, in her official capacity as the Director of the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services; and JAMES T. DIMAS, in his official capacity as the Secretary of the Illinois Department of Human Services, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02762 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an order certifying two classes: LTC Medical Pending Class: "all individuals who on or before after February 1, 2015, have applied to receive long-term care Medicaid benefits from the State of Illinois, and have not received a final eligibility determination or a notice of an application in non-disability cases or 90 days in disability cases"; LTC Admit Pending Class: "all individuals who on or about after February 1, 2015 have been determined eligible to receive long-term care Medicaid benefits from the State of Illinois, but are still waiting to be deemed "admitted" to a long-term care facility". A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=sdhzQWxS The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert H. Farley, Jr. 1155 S. Washington Street Naperville, IL 60540 Telephone: (630) 369 0103 E-mail: farleylaw@aol.com ILLINOIS: Judge OKs Class Action Over Prison Health Care -------------------------------------------------------- The State Journal-Register reports a lawsuit against the Illinois Department of Corrections alleging inadequate health care in state prisons may cover all inmates with serious medical needs in every prison facility, a judge ruled. The April 28 decision by U.S. District Judge Jorge Alonso means thousands of inmates could be affected by the class-action lawsuit, which claims medical and dental care provided by the Corrections Department doesn't meet minimum constitutional standards. It also could require the state to make changes at more than two dozen prison facilities if the court ultimately finds in favor of the inmates. Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, which filed the long-standing lawsuit on behalf of several inmates, applauded the ruling. "The system of providing health care to prisoners in Illinois is broken and must be fixed," said staff attorney Camille Bennett. "Until today, advocates looking to fix this broken system have been forced to seek redress for one person at a time. Allowing this action to move forward on behalf of the entire class of prisoners means that the solutions must be systemic." A 2015 report by court-approved researchers following visits to eight Illinois prisons found treatment delays, poor record keeping, haphazard follow-up care and other serious problems. The 405-page report concluded that the level of care may have cut short the lives of some inmates. The Corrections Department, which oversees about 49,000 inmates, argued the report provided an incomplete picture of the "comprehensive medical system in place" in Illinois facilities. Researchers reviewed records from a sample of 63 prisoner deaths over several years and said they found "significant lapses" in care in 60 percent of those cases. In one case outlined in the report, a 48-year-old prisoner pleaded for medical help after he began coughing up blood. But it took six months for physicians at the Hill Correctional Center in Galesburg to locate a softball-size tumor in his chest, the report stated. He died four months later. Researchers stated that "the blatant disregard for this patient's obvious symptoms . . . . is stunning." Lawyers for the state opposed class-action status, arguing in court filings that the inmates who sued received proper medical care. They also stated there would be no "objective, administratively feasible way to determine which inmates have serious medical or dental needs" and that the department doesn't keep a list of inmates who would meet the criteria. Corrections Department spokeswoman Nicole Wilson said on April 29 that the agency cannot comment on pending litigation and had nothing to add beyond the court filings. The case is next scheduled to be in federal court in Chicago on May 16. [GN] INFOMART INC: Faces "Mills" Suit in N.D. West Virginia ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Infomart, Inc. The case is captioned as Robert L. Mills, II, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Infomart, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00048-GMG (N.D. W.Va., Apr. 28, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Chief Judge Gina M. Groh. InfoMart is doing business in background screening services, providing businesses the information they need to make well- informed hiring decisions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John W. Barrett, Esq. Ryan McCune Donovan, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP - CHARLESTON 209 Capitol St. Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 345 6555 Facsimile: (304) 342 1110 E-mail: jbarrett@baileyglasser.com rdonovan@baileyglasser.com IRWIN SIMON: "Barnes" Hits Company Financials, Fiscal Governance ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Barnes, Individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant, Hain Celestial Group, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Irwin D. Simon, Richard C. Berke, Andrew R. Heyer, Raymond W. Kelly, Roger Meltzer, Scott M. O'Neil, Adrianne Shapira, Lawrence S. Zilavy, Pasquale Conte, Michael B. McGuinness, Stephen J. Smith and Ross Weiner, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02501, (E.D.N.Y., April 26, 2017), seeks damages sustained by the Company as a result of the Individual Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties, an order to the Director Defendants to convene and hold an annual meeting of Hain Celestial stockholders, appropriate equitable relief, costs and disbursements of this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees, accountants' and experts' fees, costs, expenses and such other and further relief for breach of fiduciary duties of loyalty and good faith. Hain Celestial is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Lake Success, New York. It manufactures, markets, distributes and sells organic and natural products. Plaintiff alleges internal control failures and deficiencies, woeful compensation and corporate governance practices in Hain Celestrial as well as constant restatement of its financial statements, numerous SEC comment letters and resignations of key executives. Irwin D. Simon is the founder of Hain Celestial. Simon has been President, Chief Executive Officer and a director of Hain Celestial since the Company's formation in May 1993. Richard C. Berke, Andrew R. Heyer, Raymond W. Kelly, Roger Meltzer, Scott M. O'Neil, Adrianne Shapira, Lawrence S. Zilavy, Pasquale Conte, Michael B. McGuinness, Stephen J. Smith and Ross Weiner are members of the board of directors of Hain Celestial. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas G. Amon, Esq. 733 Third Avenue, Floor 15 New York, NY 10107 Telephone: (212) 810-2430 E-mail: tamon@amonlaw.com - and - Brian J. Robbins, Esq. Craig W. Smith, Esq. Shane P. Sanders, Esq. Scott F. Templeton, Esq. ROBBINS ARROYO LLP 600B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 525-3990 Fax: (619) 525-3991 Email: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com csmith@robbinsarroyo.com ssanders@robbinsarroyo.com stempleton@robbinsarroyo.com JEFFERSON COUNTY, TX: Faces "Whatley" Suit in E.D. Texas -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zena Stephens. The case is entitled as John Mark Whatley, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Zena Stephens, Sheriff, Jefferson County; FNU Kelly, Jefferson County Jail Administer; FNU Malvo, Captain, Jefferson County Administer; All Female Officers, Assigned to Dorms between August 4th, 2016 and present; and FNU Torros, Officer, JCCF, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00176-RC- KFG (E.D. Tex., Apr. 27, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Ron Clark. Jefferson County is a county located in the Coastal Plain or Gulf Prairie region of Southeast Texas in the United States. The Neches River forms its northeast boundary.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. JOHNSON & SON: Faces "Machlan" Suit in N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. The case is captioned as David Machlan, an individually, on behalf of himself, the general public and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., and KAS Direct, LLC, doing business as Babyganics, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-02442 (N.D. Cal., Apr. 28, 2017). S. C. Johnson & Son is an American multinational privately held manufacturer of household cleaning supplies and other consumer chemicals based in Racine, Wisconsin. It has operations in 72 countries and its brands are sold in over 110.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. KANDI TECH: "Tavrovsky" Sues Over Share Drop, Faulty Financials --------------------------------------------------------------- Igor Tavrovsky, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Kandi Technologies Group, Inc., Xiaoming Hu, Bing Mei, Xiaoying Zhu and Cheng Wang, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03049, (S.D. N.Y., April 26, 2017), seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Kandi Technologies Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, designs, produces, manufactures, and distributes electric vehicles, products, parts, and off-road vehicles in the People's Republic of China and internationally. Its EV parts comprise battery packs, body parts, drive motors, controllers, air conditioning units, and other auto parts. Defendants failed to disclose that the company's revenues were unsustainable and artificially inflated by faulty accounting where certain areas in its financial statements required adjustment and that the company lacked effective internal controls over financial reporting. On November 14, 2016, Kandi announced the abrupt resignation of Cheng Wang, the Company's Chief Financial Officer. On this news, Kandi's share price fell $0.40, or over 10%, to close at $3.50 on November 14, 2016. Plaintiff claims to have acquired Kandi securities at artificially inflated prices and lost substantially upon the revelation of the alleged corrective disclosures. Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Hui M. Chang, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com hchang@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile (212) 697-7296 Email: peretz@bga.com KELLY SERVICES: Sued Over Employment-Related Communications ----------------------------------------------------------- Ryan DeClemente at Inside Arm reports While most people think of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") as regulating telephone solicitations and junk faxes, a recent putative class action sought to expand the TCPA's reach to a new frontier -- employment related communications. In Dolemba v. Kelly Services, Inc., plaintiff brought a putative class action against the defendant staffing company for alleged violations of the TCPA and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act ("ICFA") arising from a single phone call and voice message left on plaintiff's cellular phone. Specifically, plaintiff alleged that she previously applied for employment with defendant in March 2007 and indicated her interest in office related positions, such as accounts payable and accounts receivable. Plaintiff filled out an employment application, provided her cellular phone number, and authorized the defendant "to collect, use, store, transfer, and purge the personal information that [she] provided for employment-related purposes." Plaintiff was never offered employment by or through defendant and she never received any communications from defendant between the end of 2007 and February 2016. On February 26, 2016, plaintiff received a call from defendant through an Automated Telephone Dialing System ("ATDS"). Since she did not answer the call, defendant left a voice message soliciting individuals for employment as machine operators in certain areas. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a putative class action against the defendant for violations of the TCPA and the ICFA arising from this communication to her cellular phone. The defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff's claims and to strike the class allegations. Defendant argued that plaintiff consented to receive the subject calls regarding employment opportunities from defendant and therefore, plaintiff could not sustain her TCPA claims. Plaintiff did not dispute that she provided her cellular number to defendant, but argued: (i) her consent expired long before she received the call from defendant in 2016; and (ii) the defendant's call exceeded the scope of any consent she provided. The Court agreed with the defendant and found that plaintiff had "pleaded herself out of court by attaching her employment application, which indicates she consented to receiving calls from [defendant] for employment-related purposes." The Court further held there were no allegations concerning plaintiff's revocation of her consent and consent "does not expire at some point in time on its own." The Court also disregarded plaintiff's contention, made upon information and belief, that the defendant treats applications as outdated after some period of time. It held that these allegations cannot be construed as revocation by "reasonable means," as silence or inaction cannot be an effective means of revoking one's consent. The Court also rejected plaintiff's contention that her consent was only limited to communications regarding the office-type positions identified in her application. The Court found that the consent provided allowed defendant to "use her personal information for 'employment-related purposes'" and defendant's communications fell within the "broad consent" provided. The Court ultimately dismissed her TCPA claim with prejudice finding that any further amendment would be futile. The Court likewise dismissed plaintiff's ICFA claim. It held that plaintiff's receipt of "one prerecorded message does not rise to the level of an oppressive practice" under the ICFA and her alleged damages of "loss of time and. . . battery life" were so negligible they were unquantifiable. The Court also rejected plaintiff's attempt to support her ICFA by alleging defendant's communication violated Illinois' Automatic Telephone Dialers Act ("ITA"). Specifically, the Court held that the defendant's communications did not fall within the purview of the ITA's definition of a "recorded message" because it did not solicit the sale of goods or services and provided information about a job opportunity. While this case represents a "win" for defendants, it also highlights a new area of potential risk for employers who communicate with applicants and/or employees through the use of an ATDS or prerecorded messages. Employers should closely monitor these emerging risks and take steps to ensure their communication policies and procedures with their applicants and/or employees comply with the TCPA's requirements. [GN] KIMPTON HOTEL: Judge Rejects Bid to Dismiss Data Breach Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ JD Supra reports that in an April 13, 2017, decision in Walters v. Kimpton Hotel, a California federal judge rejected the bid of hotel chain Kimpton Hotel and Restaurant Group, LLC, to dismiss a proposed class action arising from a data breach last year. Judge Vince Chhabria found that the named plaintiff sufficiently alleged imminent harm to establish standing notwithstanding the absence of allegations that his personal information had been misused. Background of the Lawsuit In August 2016, Kimpton Hotel disclosed that malware had been installed on its servers from February 16, 2016 to July 7, 2016, and mailed notification letters to those guests who used their payment cards at a front desk during that period. Plaintiff Lee Walters was a guest at a Kimpton Hotel on May 29, 2016. Walters alleged that, following his stay at the hotel, his payment card information was stolen. Walters further alleged that, after learning of the breach, he expended time and effort to monitor his credit, and that he faced increased risk of identity theft due to the server breach. The Decision Judge Chhabria found that a plaintiff does not need to "actually suffer the misuse of his data or an unauthorized charge before he has an injury for standing purposes," and that Walters' allegations of imminent harm were sufficient to confer standing to survive Kimpton's motion to dismiss. Judge Chhabria adopted the standing approach applied by the Sixth and Seventh Circuits in Galaria v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. and Lewert v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro. In Galaria, the Sixth Circuit held that allegations of a continuing, increased risk of fraud and identify theft were more than just speculative allegations of injury, emphasizing that there is "no need for speculation where Plaintiffs allege that their data has already been stolen and is now in the hands of ill- intentioned criminals." Similarly, in P.F. Chang's, the Seventh Circuit explained that "it is plausible to infer a substantial risk of harm from the data breach, because a primary incentive for hackers is sooner or later to make fraudulent charges or assume those consumers' identities." Additionally, Walters' allegations of purchasing credit-monitoring services and other out-of-pocket expenses were actual damages sufficient to allow claims of breach of implied contract, negligence, and a violation of California's unfair competition law to survive. The breach of implied contract claim was based on allegations that Kimpton's privacy policy, which states that the company is committed to protecting customer personal data, created an enforceable promise to customers in that it was a voluntary duty and constituted valid consideration. Takeaways It is important to note that a court at the motion to dismiss stage must accept allegations of imminent harm as true, and it is far from clear whether Walters will be able to prove injury-in- fact going forward. Even so, this decision is yet another reminder that companies can no longer assume that consumer- initiated lawsuits will be dismissed where no customer information has yet been misused, and they must prepare for legal attacks from all sides -- regulators, shareholders, and consumers -- even as they work to resolve the fallout from a cyberattack. A great starting point for all companies is a simple and straightforward incident response plan that anticipates the inevitable cyber breach. Such a plan can provide a framework for integrating a response amongst the company's management, IT, legal, external communications, and outside experts, such as legal counsel and cyber forensic investigators. [GN] LOS ANGELES, CA: "Garcia" Case Settlement Fails to Win Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled Edgar Garcia, the Plaintiff v. County of Los Angeles, et al., the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-03549-FMO-VBK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. District Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order denying without prejudice Plaintiff's unopposed motion for certification of settlement class and for preliminary approval of settlement. The Court said, "No later than May 18, 2017, the amended motion for preliminary approval of class action shall be filed". A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=EoPnXMrv MARSHALL SQUARE: Mediation to Settle Claims Over 2015 Fire Fails ---------------------------------------------------------------- Abbigail Lennon at Augusta Chronicle reports that another mediation attempt to settle claims against the owners of a Columbia County retirement home by former residents regarding a 2015 fire that killed one person and led to the displacement of dozens has failed, according to the lawyer representing a number of plaintiffs. With the failed mediation, a trial on the lawsuits against the owners of Marshall Square Retirement Community will proceed May 22 in Columbia County. Augusta attorney Jack Long said the mediation included 18 plaintiffs and multiple defendants. The mediation comes after a hearing in March in which Superior Court Judge Carl Brown granted a request for more information about the fan motor of an air conditioner/heat pump suspected of causing the June 2, 2015 fire from its manufacturer -- Goodman Co. The judge also urged parties to resolve the issue in mediation, with a May 22 trial looming should negotiations fail. Long said that April 28's mediation was a failure in his opinion. Should the trial proceed, a judge will hear a property damage case by a former resident. A series of lawsuits were filed after the fire at the retirement community destroyed the homes of about 80 residents, caused the death of 91-year-old Dorothy Carpenter and trapped 82-year-old Rhetta Cadle in her condo for seven hours. The residents remained in their homes after the fire alarm sounded in the middle of the night because the owners and staff instructed residents to "shelter in place." Elderly residents of a dozen apartments destroyed in the fire have settled their claims against the complex's owners. A class-action lawsuit filed in Columbia County Superior Court on behalf of Charles and Margaret Moye and all other persons similarly situated was settled at a pretrial conference in December. The terms of the settlement are confidential. The plaintiffs' cause of the action was for property damage. [GN] MATCH GROUP: Hit With Deceptive Advertising Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- David O. Klein, Esq., at Klein Moynihan Turco LLP, in article for Lexology, wrote that a putative deceptive advertising class action lawsuit was filed against Dallas-based online dating company Match Group, Inc. ("Match") in connection with certain premium paid features available on Match's OkCupid platform. What is the nature of the claims against Match? OkCupid's A-List Feature Match's OkCupid service offers users both free accounts and optional, paid features. Those who sign up for OkCupid's "A-List" service and pay USD10, USD15 or USD20 per month (depending on the length of subscription) receive a variety of premium perks, including ad-free content, additional search filters and the ability to see a full list of everyone who has "liked" them. Deceptive Advertising Lawsuit In February, Illinois resident Chad Perkins paid to access OkCupid's A-List service. However, according to court records, his "likes" list included individuals whose OkCupid profiles had since been deleted. When Perkins contacted a Match customer service agent, he was informed that the inclusion of deleted profiles "was a bug" and that Match is "working on a fix so this doesn't happen going forward." On April 20, 2017, Perkins commenced the subject class action lawsuit against Match in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 17-cv-2988) on behalf of all OkCupid A-List users whose lists of "likes" included deleted user profiles. The complaint alleges that Match violated Illinois State's deceptive advertising statute by marketing "A-List memberships to Plaintiff and the Class under the false pretense that more OkCupid users 'liked' them than the number, if any, who actually had." Perkins' complaint further claims that Match has operated OkCupid in violation of the Illinois Dating Referral Services Act, which requires dating referral services to have written contracts with their customers that contain certain statutory requirements and prohibitions. Protect Yourself from a Deceptive Advertising Lawsuit As the above-referenced case illustrates, companies that offer online paid premium services can routinely come under scrutiny from class action plaintiffs, as well as federal and state authorities. Accordingly, it is critically important that such businesses work closely with knowledgeable marketing counsel to ensure that they steer clear of regulatory pitfalls. [GN] MICRO-STAR INTERNATIONAL: Laptops Not Upgradeable, Thornton Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- CASEY THORNTON and CARL JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MICRO-STAR INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD.; MSI COMPUTER CORP.; and DOES 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-03231 (C.D. Cal., Apr. 28, 2017), seeks injunctive relief to benefit the public, including a corrective advertising campaign, requiring Defendants to make full disgorgement and restitution of all monies wrongfully obtained from Plaintiffs and the Class, and all other relief permitted under Bus. & Prof. Code. Carl Jones resides in Santa Clara County, California. Mr. Jones purchased an MSI GT80 series laptop computer online through Amazon.com for approximately $3,000 in or about January 2016. The Plaintiffs purchased these products for personal use and not for purposes of resale or distribution. Upon viewing website advertisements and/or publicly available information for these laptops as well as third party reviewers' websites and for (such as forum.notebookreview.com) repeating the specifications provided by Defendants, Plaintiffs purchased the laptops in question. A material factor in their deciding to purchase these laptop computers was the represented capability of these laptops to be upgraded to one or more later generations of NVIDIA GPUs. When the new 1000 series of GTX GPUs produced by NVIDIA came on the market in 2016, they decided to upgrade their laptops. Plaintiffs subsequently learned that they could not do so, due to the material misrepresented or undisclosed fact that these laptops were not in fact upgradeable to the next generation of NVIDIA GPUs. In the Fall of 2016, Plaintiffs or their representatives contacted Defendants' representatives about the ability to return their laptops, but were told that there was no refund option. Because Defendants refused to offer Plaintiffs a full refund when they made such a request, Plaintiffs now own laptops for which they overpaid. Plaintiffs would not have purchased these laptops at the prices they did had the true facts been timely disclosed by Defendants. Plaintiffs must purchase another computer for more money to obtain the promised upgrade capability, as compared to several hundred dollars to purchase an upgraded NVIDIA GPU, to obtain the benefit of their bargain. Plaintiffs have also spent months and considerable time and resources attempting to resolve these issues without the need to seek court intervention, without success. Plaintiffs have therefore suffered a loss of money or property and suffered damage as a result of Defendants' illegal business acts and practices. Micro-star operates interactive website. MSI Computer is engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, selling and distributing computers, including the GT series of laptop computers at issue here. Defendants develop and ship their products, including these laptop computers, to purchasers, resellers and distributors in and from California, maintain a direct sales force in California, sell their products through retail outlets in California, and create the specifications, advertisements and reviewers' guides for their products in and disseminates them from California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeff S. Westerman, Esq. WESTERMAN LAW CORP. 1875 Century Park East, Suite 2200 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 698 7880 Facsimile: (310) 698 7452 E-mail: jwesterman@jswlegal.com - and - Alan M. Mansfield, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP OF CALIFORNIA 16870 W. Bernardo Dr., Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (619) 308 5034 Facsimile: (855) 274 1888 E-mail: alan@clgca.com MILWAUKEE BUCKS: Settles Cheerleader Pay Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- Today's TMJ reports a former Milwaukee Bucks cheerleader who claimed in a lawsuit that she and her colleagues were underpaid has reached a settlement with the team but the organization maintains it did nothing wrong. The settlement agreement calls for the Bucks to pay USD10,000 to Lauren Herington, who filed a proposed class-action lawsuit in 2015. The Bucks will pay USD115,000 for her attorneys' fees and set aside another USD125,000 that can be divided among other cheerleaders who make a claim. The lawsuit said dancers were not properly compensated for games, team functions, and photo shoots because of a flat-rate pay system. At the time, a spokesman for the Bucks said the lawsuit presented a false picture of how the team operates. Both sides agreed settling now would avoid costly litigation. [GN] MCDONALD'S CORP: Salazar Appeals N.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Genoveva Lopez, Guadalupe Salazar and Judith Zarate filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in their lawsuit entitled Guadalupe Salazar, et al. v. McDonald's Corp., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-02096-RS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 28, 2017, District Judge Richard Seeborg granted McDonald's summary judgment for a second time in his latest ruling, saying McDonald's cannot be held liable for workplace violations because it doesn't meet the definition of an employer under California's labor code. Cashiers Guadalupe Salazar, Genoveva Lopez and Judith Zarate sued McDonald's and franchise owner Bobby Haynes in March 2014, claiming they were denied meal and rest breaks and that McDonald's miscalculated their wages through a flawed payroll system. The appellate case is captioned as Guadalupe Salazar, et al. v. McDonald's Corp., et al., Case No. 17-15673, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by May 8, 2017; -- Transcript is due on June 6, 2017; -- Appellants Genoveva Lopez, Guadalupe Salazar and Judith Zarate's opening brief is due on July 17, 2017; -- Appellees Bobby O. Haynes Sr. and Carol R. Haynes Family Limited Partnership, McDonald's Corp., McDonald's Restaurants of California, Inc. and McDonald's USA, LLC's answering brief is due on August 15, 2017; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants GUADALUPE SALAZAR, GENOVEVA LOPEZ and JUDITH ZARATE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Barbara Jane Chisholm, Esq. Matthew John Murray, Esq. P. Casey Pitts, Esq. Michael Rubin, Esq. ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 177 Post Street San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 421-7151 Facsimile: (415) 362-8264 E-mail: bchisholm@altshulerberzon.com mmurray@altshulerberzon.com cpitts@altshulerberzon.com mrubin@altber.com - and - Joseph M. Sellers, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: jsellers@cmht.com Defendants-Appellees MCDONALD'S CORP., MCDONALD'S USA, LLC, a limited liability company, and MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a corporation, are represented by: Fred W. Alvarez, Esq. JONES DAY 1755 Embarcadero Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 Telephone: (650) 739-3939 Facsimile: (650) 739-3900 E-mail: falvarez@jonesday.com - and - Lawrence C. DiNardo, Esq. Elizabeth B. McRee, Esq. JONES DAY 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 782-3939 Facsimile: (312) 782-8585 E-mail: lcdinardo@jonesday.com emcree@jonesday.com - and - Kelsey Alissa Israel-Trummel, Esq. Catherine Suzanne Nasser, Esq. JONES DAY 555 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 875-5831 Facsimile: (415) 875-5700 E-mail: kitrummel@jonesday.com cnasser@jonesday.com - and - Matthew Willis Lampe, Esq. JONES DAY 250 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281-1047 Telephone: (212) 326-8338 Facsimile: (212) 755-7306 E-mail: mwlampe@jonesday.com Defendant-Appellee BOBBY O. HAYNES SR. AND CAROL R. HAYNES FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, erroneously sued as Bobby O. Haynes and Carole R. Haynes Family Limited Partnership, DBA McDonald's, is represented by: Regina Alvinette Petty, Esq. FISHER PHILLIPS LLP 4747 Executive Drive San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (858) 597-9600 Facsimile: (858) 597-9601 E-mail: rpetty@laborlawyers.com MYLAN INC: Cesar Castillo Sues Over Overpriced EpiPen Injectable ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cesar Castillo, Inc., individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Mylan Inc., Mylan Specialty L.P., Pfizer, Inc., King Pharmaceuticals LLC and Meridian Medical Technologies, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02813, (D.N.J., April 25, 2017), seeks to recover treble damages, costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees resulting from overcharging of epinephrine-injecting devices in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act as well as various state consumer protection laws. Defendants produce, market and sell the EpiPen, a self-injecting device that delivers epinephrine, a synthetic form of adrenaline used to relax muscles around airways and tightening blood vessels to maintain respiratory and cardiovascular function during allergies. Mylan Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business at 1000 Mylan Blvd., Canonsburg, Pennsylvania 15317. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a West Virginia corporation with its principal place of business at TSl Chestnut Ridge Road, Morgantown, West Virginia 26505. Pfizer, through its wholly owned subsidiaries King and Meridian, is exclusive supplier of EpiPens to Mylan. King manufacturers the epinephrine for the EpiPen, and Meridian (who holds the EpiPen auto-injector patents) manufactures the EpiPen injector device itself. Defendants allegedly engage in anticompetitive and illegal exclusionary conspiracy to maintain monopoly over said product and has made them billions of dollars at the expense of consumers. Cesar Castillo, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, with its principal place of business and headquarters located at Bo. Quebradas Arena, Rd. #1 Km. 26.0, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico, 00926. Plaintiff purchased clobetasol propionate topical ointment directly from one or more Defendants at excessive prices. Plaintiff is represented by: Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. Bradley J. Demuth, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 570 Lexington Avenue, 19 Fl. New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 722-7053 Email: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com bdemuth@nussbaumpc.com - and - Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. 550 Broad Street, Suite 920 Newark, NJ 07102 Tel: (973) 639-9100 Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com - and - Jennifer Scullion, Esq. 77 Water Street, 26th Floor New York, NY 10005 Tel: (212) 584-0700 Email: jscullion@seegerweiss.com NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Deepe Appeals S.D. Ind. Ruling to 7th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff Peter Deppe filed an appeal from a court ruling in his lawsuit entitled Peter Deppe v. NCAA, Case No. 1:16-cv-00528-TWP- DKL, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant violated the Sherman Act by unlawfully agreeing to limit the number of Division I football scholarships that a member institution can grant in any year, and that the NCAA and its member institutions have ensured that student-athletes in the Class receive tens of millions less for their labor for member institutions than they would receive, and the member institutions would pay, in a competitive market. Defendant National Collegiate Athletic Association is an unincorporated association that acts as the governing body of college sports. The appellate case is captioned as Peter Deppe v. NCAA, Case No. 17-1711, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that the Appellant's brief is due on or before May 15, 2017, for Peter Deppe.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant PETER DEPPE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101-0000 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com Defendant-Appellee NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION is represented by: Gregory L. Curtner, Esq. SCHIFF HARDIN LLP 350 S. Main Street Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 222-1500 E-mail: gcurtner@schiffhardin.com NATIONAL HOCKEY: Asks Court to Remove 2 Players From Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- John Kennedy at Law360 reports the National Hockey League on April 27 asked a Minnesota federal judge to cut two retired players from a proposed class action alleging the league didn't tell players about the risks of concussions, arguing that the men's claims are time-barred. Gary Leeman, who played until 1997, and Bernie Nicholls, who left the NHL two years later, knew, or should've known about their alleged brain injuries by 2010 at the latest, the league said in a motion for summary judgment. Their claims are governed by a three- year statute of limitations, and they filed their suits -- since consolidated into multidistrict litigation -- after 2013, the NHL said. Leeman, a right wing who spent most of his career with the Toronto Maple Leafs, was playing for them in 1988 when he was hit with the "shot that changed [his] life." That shot, a slapshot by hockey Hall of Famer Al MacInnis, fractured his skull and gave him a concussion. Leeman's testimony and medical records show that all of the symptoms that underlie his claims in the instant suit were immediately apparent at the time of the injury and there's no other undetected injury that could pause the statute of limitation, the NHL said. Even if the slapshot had caused a separate, undetected injury, Leeman's claims would've surfaced by early 2010, by which time he'd spoken to two neurologists, had done his own research, concluded that concussions had caused him long-term injury and filed a workers' compensation suit against several former teams, but not the NHL itself, the NHL contends. Nicholls, a center who played most of his career with the Los Angeles Kings, has said he began experiencing symptoms of neurological problems shortly after retiring in 1999. He filed a workers' compensation claim against the San Jose Sharks, his last team, in 2009, based on the same symptoms at issue in the instant suit, the NHL said. As part of his workers' compensation suit, Nicholls testified in March 2010 that he was aware of the long-term neurological risks of concussions. Also in connection with those proceedings, the center's doctor provided a report in April 2010 that said head injuries sustained in the NHL caused Nicholls' neurological problems. The league acknowledged that the court had previously denied its dismissal motion, holding that the clock shouldn't start ticking on players' claims until they knew or should've known that head trauma could pose an increased risk of neurological disorders. But that order doesn't apply to Leeman or Nicholls, the NHL said, because both of them knew about the alleged risks of head injuries and concussions by early 2010 at the latest. The players could not be reached for comment on April 28. The NHL is represented by Daniel J. Connolly -- Daniel.connolly@faegrebd.com -- Joseph M. Price -- joseph.price@faegrebd.com -- Linda S. Svitak and Aaron D. Van Oort -- aaron.vanoort@FaegreBD.com -- of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, John H. Beisner -- john.beisner@skadden.com -- Jessica D. Miller -- jessica.miller@skadden.com -- Geoffrey M. Wyatt -- Geoffrey.wyatt@skadden.com -- Shepard Goldfein -- shepard.goldfein@skadden.com -- James A. Keyte -- james.keyte@skadden.com -- and Matthew M. Martino -- matthew.martino@skadden.com -- of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP and Joseph Baumgarten and Adam M. Lupion of Proskauer Rose LLP. Leeman and Nicholls are represented by Silverman Thompson Slutkin & White. The cases are Leeman et al. v. National Hockey League, case number 0:14-cv-03233, and In re: National Hockey League Players' Concussion Injury Litigation, case number 0:14-md-02551, both in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. [GN] NATIONAL IMAGING: "Mauthe" Sues Over Unsolicited Faxed Ads ---------------------------------------------------------- Robert W. Mauthe, M.D., P.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. National Imaging Associates, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-01916, (E.D. Pa., April 26, 2017), seeks statutory damages, trebling of statutory damages, injunctive relief, compensation and attorney fees and all other relief for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and applicable regulations of the Federal Communications Commission. Plaintiff has a private medical practice in Center Valley, Pennsylvania. He claims to have received unsolicited faxed ads about Defendant's radiology benefits management services available through their website. Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Shenkan, Esq. SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, LLC P.O. Box 7255 New Castle, PA 16107 Tel: (248) 562-1320 Fax: (888) 769-1774 Email: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com - and - Phillip A. Bock, Esq. BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC 134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 658-5500 Fax: (312) 658-5555 Email: phil@classlawyers.com NEIMAN MARCUS: Certification of Class & Subclasses Sought --------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled HOLLY ATTIA, ROSHANAK BASTI, NILOOFAR ESHAGHBEIGL, MICHELLE GIRARD, ELISE KELLEY, KIM MARCONI, ISABEL ROMERO, DAVID TOLBERT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. THE NEIMAN MARCUS GROUP, INC. a Texas corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-00504-DOC-FFM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on July 3, 2017 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 9D of the United States District Court for the Central District of California at the Ronald Reagan Federal Building, United States Courthouse, 9th Floor, 411 West Fourth Street, Santa Ana, CA, 92701, for an order as follows: 1. certifying a class of employees: "all individuals employed at Defendant's full-line department stores in California who were paid a draw versus commission from May 1, 2014 through the time of trial. 2. certifying subclasses: California Labor Code section 226.7 subclass: "all individuals employed at Defendant's full-line department stores in California who were paid a draw versus commission from May 1, 2014 through the time of trial and who were not separately compensated for rest periods; California Labor Code section 226 subclass: "all individuals employed at Defendant's full-line department stores in California who were paid a draw versus commission from May 1, 2014 through the time of trial and who have been provided a wage statement"; California Labor Code section 203 subclass "all individuals employed at Defendant's full-line department stores in California who were paid a draw versus commission from May 1, 2014 through the time of trial and who have separated their employment"; and California Business and Professions Code section 17200 Subclass: "all individuals employed at Defendant's full-line department stores in California who were paid a draw versus commission from May 1, 2014 through the time of trial who were subjected to Defendant's unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices in the form of Labor Code violations regarding failure to pay for breaks and failure to pay final wages"; 3. appointing James Hawkins, APLC as class counsel; and 4. approving the designation of Plaintiffs Holly Attia, Roshanak Basti, Michelle Girard, Elise Kelley, Kim Marconi, Isabel Romero, and David Tolbert as class representatives. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UiCElOxF The Plaintiffs are represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Christina M. Lucio, Esq. Malte L. L. Farnaes, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 387 7200 Facsimile: (949) 387 6676 E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com christina@jameshawkinsaplc.com malte@jameshawkinsaplc.com NEW MEXICO: Judge Allows Wage Law Violations Suit to Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------ Phaedra Haywood at The New Mexican reports a lawsuit accusing the New Mexico Department of Workforce Solutions of failing to enforce wage laws will go forward, a state judge has ruled, despite a motion from the agency to dismiss the case. First District Court Judge David Thomson also extended a temporary restraining order that prohibits the department from denying certain types of wage complaints -- including those claiming more than CAD10,000 in damages and those more than a year old -- until the case is settled. The class-action lawsuit filed in January claims the department has allowed businesses to get away with paying workers less than the minimum wage and cheating employees out of overtime pay. The suit also says the agency has adopted polices that allow it to dismiss and deny wage-theft claims for reasons that are not supported by state law -- such as the amount of money a worker claims he or she is owed. The suit was filed jointly by the New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty, several workers rights groups and Somos Un Pueblo Unido on behalf of four workers. One of the workers named in the lawsuit, JosÇ Olivas, claims he is owed about CAD15,000 for working 65- to 100-hour weeks helping a man remodel a restaurant in Farmington in 2014. The Department of Workforce Solutions filed a motion in February seeking to dismiss the suit, arguing that the court didn't have the authority to order to change policies made by department officials. The judge disagreed in a written order filed April 26. "Respectfully, the statutory language is clear," Thomson wrote in his order denying the department's motion to dismiss the case. "This Court must give effort to statutes as written." The plaintiffs lauded Thomson's decision, which will allow the case to proceed. Marco Nunez, a workers justice coordinator at El Centro de Igualdad y Derechos, one of the workers rights organizations involved in the suit, said in an email that the agency's "failure to enforce New Mexico's wage and hour laws is one more example of how hard working New Mexicans are getting the short end of the stick in our state -- but they are fighting back." "This case is too important to dismiss," Nunez continued, "particularly given the profound impact wage theft has on New Mexican working families. We applaud the ruling and look forward to continuing to expose systemic failures by DWS to enforce New Mexico wage and hour laws." [GN] OCWEN FINANCIAL: "Lundgren" Files Securities Suit in E.D. Pa. ------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Lundgren, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ronald M. Faris and Michael R. Bourque Jr., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01918, (E.D. Pa., April 26, 2017), seeks damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Ocwen Financial Corporation is a diversified financial services holding company whose primary businesses are the acquisition, servicing, and resolution of sub-performing and nonperforming residential and commercial mortgage loans, as well as the related development of loan servicing technology and business-to business e-commerce solutions for the mortgage and real estate industries. Defendants allegedly failed to disclose that Ocwen serviced loans using error-riddled information, loaded inaccurate and incomplete information into its database, illegally foreclosed on homeowners by modifying loans for troubled borrowers and failed to deliver required foreclosure protections, failed to credit borrowers' payments and provide accurate periodic statements detailing the amount due, failed to conduct escrow analyses and send escrow statements, mishandled hazard insurance, bungled borrowers' private mortgage insurance by failing to cancel borrowers' private mortgage insurance in a timely way, causing consumers to overpay and deceptively signed up, charged borrowers for add-on products without their knowledge, failed to assist heirs seeking foreclosure alternatives, and failed to adequately investigate and respond to borrower complaints. Lundgren owns shares of Ocwen Financial Corporation. Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Tel: (215) 600-2817 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Email: jgoldberq@rosenlegal.com ONTARIO: Fails to Eliminate Wait List for Support Services ---------------------------------------------------------- Cindy Males at The Nugget reports that Christopher Ouellette wants to live on his own. "I still want to be independent in my apartment." But it may be years before that can happen. The 18-year-old is autistic and developmentally delayed. Ouellette's name is on a waiting list for supportive housing, but it may be 10 years or longer before he gets the type of apartment he needs because there is a waiting list for available spaces in the community. "The only way to get into a space is to wait for someone to die," says Denis Ouellette, Christopher's father." That's why the Ouellette family has joined a CAD110-million class- action lawsuit against the Ontario government, alleging the province has failed to eliminate the years-long wait list for support services. Marc Leroux of Timmins launched the suit on behalf of his 19-year- old daughter, Briana Leroux, who is non-verbal and requires around-the-clock support. The statement of claim alleges the Ontario government has ignored the issue of waiting lists for years and the wait times are often indeterminate and will last for years, placing families in a perpetual state of crisis. It cites a report from 2014 by a legislative committee that recommended the list be eliminated within 12 months, a recommendation it says was rejected by the Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services. "We're adding our weight to this," says Linda Thomas-Ouellette, Christopher's step-mother, who hopes other families in similar situations get on board. "It's harder to ignore thousands of people." The financial assistance Christopher was receiving from the Ontario government ended when he turned 18 on Oct. 30, 2016 "His needs didn't change because he's 18." His parents estimate he's lost CAD4,000 a year since. Christopher is on a waiting list for Passport Funding, a program that services adults, but it's not clear when he will receive any money. In the meantime, Christopher's parents are paying for respite and community services out of pocket. According to the ministry website, 13,000 adults with developmental disabilities were eliminated from the 2014 Passport wait list. But media reports say another 11,000 people have requested support since 2015 and are still waiting. "Christopher has a right to be independent," Linda says. She started a petition in January to demand the Ontario government take action to address the wait lists and, so far she's collected 600 signatures. "No one I've asked (to sign) has said no. Anyone wanting more information about the lawsuit can go to www.kmlaw.ca/waitlistclassaction. It was filed by lawyers Kirk Baert and Jody Brown, of Koskie Minsky LLP. Christopher's parents hope the lawsuit will resolve the delays in a timely fashion. "There's been more than enough studies," says Denis. "They can easily have things started within the next year or two. "Like any parent, we want to know that he's settled. We're not going to last forever." [GN] ONTARIO HOCKEY: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Minimum Wage -------------------------------------------------------------- Rick Westhead at KSN reports that former Ontario Hockey League players who are suing the league for minimum wage won a major court decision in Toronto. Ratcheting up the potential damages that might be awarded to the players, Ontario Superior Court Justice Paul Perell certified their three-year-old case as a class-action lawsuit and appointed as representative plaintiffs Sam Berg, who played for the Niagara IceDogs in 2013, and Daniel Pachis, who played for the Saginaw Spirit and Oshawa Generals during an OHL career that started in 2007 and ended in the 2009-10 season. Justice Perell wrote that he certified the case despite the warnings from the OHL that the "allegedly selfish class action would bring on the eve of destruction for hockey players." "The [OHL] did not challenge that there was some basis in fact that the past and present players of the OHL had a common experience and a common type of relationship with them," Perell wrote. OHL commissioner David Branch declined to comment. He wrote in an email to TSN that he planned to issue a statement. The league has 20 days to appeal. OHL players who skated in the league between 2012 and the present season automatically become plaintiffs in a lawsuit the OHL says may cost the league as much as CAD30 million. Typically, there is an opt-out period in class-action lawsuits when prospective plaintiffs can inform the court, usually by completing an opt-out form, that they don't wish to participate in the case, meaning they aren't eligible to receive any portion of a settlement. Those who opt out would be free to bring their own individual lawsuits against the league. Players for the OHL's three U.S.-based teams are exempted from the class action, Justice Perell wrote in his decision. That means Pachis, who played in Michigan for Saginaw for two seasons, would only be eligible for damages related to his time playing with the Generals during the 2009-10 season. "It is not a surprise that parts of this suit were certified and allowed to move forward as a class action given the current state of the law in Canada on this procedural issue," CHL spokesman Paul Krotz wrote in an emailed statement. "We are pleased that the court recognized the preferability that claims against our U.S. teams should be resolved by the U.S. courts. "With the certification proceedings behind us in Ontario, this now gives us the opportunity to focus on the merits of the case." Justice Perell's decision has no impact on similar proposed class- action lawsuits filed against the Western Hockey League and Quebec Major Junior Hockey League. A judge's decision about certifying the case against the WHL is expected to be issued sometime over the next month in Calgary. Justice Perell wrote that the OHL case already has become one marked by propaganda from both sides. "Perhaps because of the novelty of their claim and the extraordinary importance that hockey has to Canadians, Messrs. Berg and Pachis excessively over-pleaded both their case and also their certification motion, and they engaged in an emotive public relations pitch to portray the players that formed the putative class as exploited workers of avaricious employers," Justice Perell wrote. "The [OHL] excessively responded to the certification motion with an emotive public relations pitch of their own. The [OHL] portrayed themselves as magnanimous patrons and benefactors of their hockey players. The Defendants portrayed Messrs. Berg and Pachis as bitter, self-centered, and ungrateful also-rans, whose proposed class action would irreparably damage the enterprise that had been built for the players to advance their careers and their prospects to play in the professional hockey leagues." [GN] PENNSYLVANIA, USA: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in "Stradford" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs William Nettles, William Scott, Lacey Stradford and Jesse Stroud filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in their lawsuit titled Lacey Stradford, et al. v. Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, Case No. 2-16-cv-02064, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs sought to represent all persons, who are now and in the future incarcerated in a Pennsylvania Department of Corrections ("DOC") facility with a sex offense classification who have been approved for parole but who cannot obtain their release from this incarceration due to the restriction on their placement into a DOC operated or contracted halfway house until two years prior to reaching their maximum term. The appellate case is captioned as Lacey Stradford, et al. v. Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, Case No. 17- 1773, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants LACEY STRADFORD, WILLIAM NETTLES, JESSE STROUD and WILLIAM SCOTT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Donald Driscoll, Esq. COMMUNITY JUSTICE PROJECT 100 Fifth Avenue, Suite 900 Pittsburgh PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 434-6012 E-mail: ddriscoll@cjplaw.org - and - Alexandra Morgan-Kurtz, Esq. PENNSYLVANIA INSTITUTIONAL LAW PROJECT 429 Forbes Avenue, Suite 800 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 434-6175 E-mail: amorgan-kurtz@pailp.org Defendant-Appellee SECRETARY PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS is represented by: Timothy A. Holmes, I, Esq. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 1920 Technology Parkway Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 728-7763 PERSONIFIED CONSTRUCTION: "Villatoro" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS VILLATORO, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PERSONIFIED CONSTRUCTION, INC., a California corporation; BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC., a Maryland corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC659404 (Cal. Super. Ct., Apr. 28, 2017), seeks to recover compensatory damages in the amount of the unpaid minimum wages for work performed by Plaintiff and unpaid overtime compensation under Labor Code. From at least four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit and continuing to the present, Defendants failed to pay Employees minimum wages as required under Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. Specifically, Employees were consistently required to work off-the-clock hours under Defendants' employ, for which they were never paid. Employees' wages were based upon a forty-hour work week. However, Employees were required to work post-shift hours, off-the-clock, and in excess of their scheduled shifts for which they were never paid wages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Yeremian, Esq. David Keledjian, Esq. DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Su 535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 230 8380 Facsimile: (818) 230 0308 E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com davidk@yeremianlaw.com PETROSSIAN RESTAURANTS: Shabu Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- AHMED SHABU and PARVEZ LATIF, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PETROSSIAN RESTAURANTS, INC., PETROSSIAN BOUTIQUE, INC., ARMEN PETROSSIAN, ARNAUD THIEFFRY, and ALEXANDRE PETROSSIAN, the Defendants, Case No. 507622/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. April 27, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, misappropriated tips, and spread-of-hours pay permitted by law pursuant to the Fair labor Standards Act (FLSA), New York Labor Law (NYLL) and the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations. The Plaintiffs and their similarly situated co-workers -- servers, bartenders, bussers, barbacks, food runners, and other similarly situated non-managerial employees -- have worked at the Petrossian New York Restaurant and the Petrossian Cafe and Boutique, both located at 182 West 58lh Street, New York, New York 10019. Throughout Plaintiffs' employment, Defendants applied a tip credit to Tipped Workers' wages and paid Tipped Workers a reduced minimum wage rate. Defendants however did not satisfy the requirements under the NYLL or the FLSA by which they could take a tip credit towards the hourly rates paid to Tipped Workers. In that regard, Defendants allegedly: (a) failed to provide Plaintiffs and other Tipped Workers with notification of the tipped minimum wage rate or tip credit provisions of the NYLL or the FLSA, or of their intent to apply a tip credit to Plaintiffs' and other Tipped Workers' wages; (b) distributed portions of Plaintiffs' and other Tipped Workers' tips to workers who are ineligible to receive tips under the NYLL or FLSA; and (c) failed to furnish Plaintiffs and other Tipped Workers with accurate wage statements with each payment of wages. As a result, Defendants are liable to Tipped Workers for the difference between the full minimum wage rate and the tipped minimum wage rate paid for all hours worked up to 40 each workweek. Owned, operated, and controlled by Petrossian Restaurants, Inc., Petrossian Boutique, Inc., Armen Petrossian, Amaud Thieffry, and Alexandre Petrossian, Petrossian restaurants have operated worldwide for almost a century.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. Jeffrey H. Dorfman, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 The Defendants are represented by: FOX & ROTHSCHILD LLP 100 Park Avenue, Ste 1500 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 878 7900 PIZZA HUT: Court to Hear Appeal in Franchisee Suit This Month ------------------------------------------------------------- Adele Furguson at The Sidney Morning Herald reports that pizza wars, the AUD4.95 pizzas they spawned and the allegedly disastrous impact on Pizza Hut franchisees, is about to be put on trial in a case that will put the AUD170 billion franchise sector on edge. The appeal lodged in the Federal Court of Australia will be heard next month, and up to 90 per cent of Pizza Hut franchisees are backing the class action by liquidator Bob Jacobs at Auxilium Partners. It comes as the relationship between franchisees and franchisors has come under the spotlight, and legislative reforms are set to be introduced that would make franchisors jointly responsible for workplace abuses if they have significant control or influence on the franchisee. Not surprisingly, the Franchise Council of Australia is fighting to water down the legislation. It will also be keeping an eye on the latest litigation. The legal action came about after Jacobs was appointed liquidator to three entities that held Pizza Hut franchisees after Pizza Hut franchisor US giant Yum! allegedly requested its franchisee network slash the cost of pizzas up to 50 per cent in July 2014 in response to Domino's dropping the price of its pizzas. A class action ensued in August 2014, alleging unconscionable conduct, losses and business collapses as a direct consequence of orders from Yum! to halve pizza prices. [GN] PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Faces "Lockridge" Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional Claims Bureau, Inc. The case is entitled as Shawn Lockridge, Karen Manco, Michael E. Habel, and Darlene Rivera-Nieves, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Professional Claims Bureau, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-02564 (E.D.N.Y., Apr. 28, 2017). Professional Claims provides receivable collection and management services. The Company offers insurance follow-up, credentialing, and skip tracing.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. QUAIN ENTERPRISES: "Buron" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------------- Jeanette Buron, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Quain Enterprises, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-60809, (S.D. Fla., April 25, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime wages, equitable tolling of limitations as a result of Defendant's failure to post requisite notices, liquidated damages for failure to pay overtime premium, damages representing the employer's share of Federal Insurance Contributions Tax, Federal Unemployment Tax, state unemployment insurance and any other required employment taxes, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorney's fees and expert fees and an award of a service payment to the Plaintiff and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant owns and operates several Jimmy John's franchised locations where Plaintiff worked as an Assistant Store Manager at the Hollywood and Pembroke Pines, Florida Stores. Plaintiff is represented by: Alan L. Quiles, Esq. Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 1515 S. Federal Highway, Suite 404 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com aquiles@shavitzlaw.com - and - Justin M. Swartz, Esq. Michael N. Litrownik OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 Facsimile: (212) 977-4005 Email: jms@outtengolden.com mlitrownik@outtengolden.com - and - Douglas M. Werman, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 West Washington Street, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 Facsimile: (312) 419-1025 Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com - and - Drew Legando, Esq. Jack Landskroner, Esq. LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN LLC 1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 522-9000 Facsimile: (216) 522-9007 Email: drew@lgmlegal.com jack@lgmlegal.com - and - Kathleen Currie Chavez, Esq. Kevin Paul Noll, Esq. Peter Lawrence Currie, Esq. Robert M. Foote, Esq. FOOTE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ & O'NIEL, LLC 10 West State St., Suite #200 Geneva, IL 60134 Tel: (630) 232-7450 Email: kcc@fmcolaw.com kpm@fmcolaw.com rmf@fmcolaw.com - and - Myron M. Cherry, Esq. MYRON M. CHERRY & ASSOCIATES, LLC 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2300 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 372-2100 Facsimile: (312) 853-0279 Email: mcherry@cherry-law.com - and - Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Fran L. Rudich, Esq. Christopher M. Timmel, Esq. KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 Facsimile: (914) 934-9220 Email: slesser@klafterolsen.com frudich@klafterolsen.com christopher.timmel@klafterolsen.com QUALCOMM INC: "Carroll" Antitrust Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Daniel Carroll, Debra Grasl and Amanda Newsome, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Qualcomm Incorporated, Defendants, Case No. 3:17- cv-00216, (S.D. Cal., February 2, 2017), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on April 25, 2017 under case No. 5:17-cv-02168. Qualcomm is a developer of cellular technology, such as the Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) standard on which network carriers rely upon. It is the dominant producer of CDMA chipsets and holds the largest number of Standard Essential Patents for CDMA technology and it incorporated into virtually every relevant cellular standard in the last several years. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees resulting from unjust enrichment and for violation of the California state consumer protection statutes, state antitrust and restraint of trade laws, unfair competition law and for violation of the Cartwright Act and Sherman Act by maintaining a monopoly over the modem chipset market by refusing to license and/or impose onerous restrictions on licenses of its patents to competing chipset makers. Plaintiff is represented by: Betsy C. Manifold, Esq. Rachele R. Rickert, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 750 B Street, Suite 2770 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 239-4599 Facsimile: (619) 234-4599 Email: manifold@whafh.com rickert@whafh.com Defendant is represented by: Asim M. Bhansali, Esq. David W. Rizk, Esq. Eugene Morris Paige, Esq. Justina Kahn Sessions, Esq. Robert A. Van Nest, Esq. KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 Tel: (415) 391-5400 Fax: (415) 397-7188 Email: abhansali@keker.com drizk@kvn.com EMP@kvn.com jsessions@keker.com rvannest@keker.com QUALITY DINING: Joseph Appeals E.D. Penn. Ruling to Third Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Stephanie Joseph and Ryan Rutherford filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit styled Stephanie Joseph, et al. v. Quality Dining Inc., et al., Case No. 5-16-cv-01907, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought by the Plaintiffs on April 22, 2016, against Quality Dining, which operates 48 Chili's restaurants as franchisees. The nature of suit is stated as civil rights jobs. The appellate case is captioned as Stephanie Joseph, et al. v. Quality Dining Inc., et al., Case No. 17-1741, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants STEPHANIE JOSEPH and RYAN RUTHERFORD, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated employees, are represented by: Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. Peter D. Winebrake, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 Facsimile: (215) 884-2492 E-mail: mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com asantillo@winebrakelaw.com pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com Defendants-Appellees QUALITY DINING INC. and GRAYLING CORP. are represented by: Matthew J. Hank, Esq. Holly E. Rich, Esq. Rachel F. Satinsky, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 1601 Cherry Street Suite 1400, Three Parkway Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (267) 402-3054 Facsimile: (267) 402 3131 E-mail: mhank@littler.com hrich@littler.com rsatinsky@littler.com QUALITY DINING: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in "Cicero" Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Cynthia Cicero filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Cynthia Cicero v. Quality Dining Inc., et al., Case No. 1-16-cv-05806, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff worked at the Defendants' Delran, New Jersey location as a server. The Plaintiff complained about the tip-credit being implemented, making wages fall below the minimum. The lawsuit is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The appellate case is captioned as Cynthia Cicero v. Quality Dining Inc., et al., Case No. 17-1749, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant CYNTHIA CICERO, on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees, is represented by: Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. Peter D. Winebrake, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twinning Road Suite 211, Twinning Office Center Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 Facsimile: (215) 884-2492 E-mail: mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com asantillo@winebrakelaw.com pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com Defendants-Appellees QUALITY DINING INC., SOUTHWEST DINING INC. and GRAYLING CORP. are represented by: Holly E. Rich, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 1601 Cherry Street Suite 1400, Three Parkway Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (267) 402-3068 E-mail: ediedrich@littler.com Defendant-Appellee QUALITY DINING INC. is represented by: Rachel F. Satinsky, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 1601 Cherry Street Suite 1400, Three Parkway Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (267) 402-3000 E-mail: rsatinsky@littler.com RBS HOLDINGS: BBSW Manipulation Class Action Underway ----------------------------------------------------- An Australian Bank Bill Swap Reference Rate (BBSW) class action case filed against RBS Holdings N.V. units, among other financial companies, is still ongoing, according to the Company's Form 20-F filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. In August 2016, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against certain RBS Group companies (including RBS N.V.) and a number of other financial institutions. The complaint alleges that the defendants conspired to manipulate the BBSW and asserts claims under the U.S. antitrust laws, the Commodity Exchange Act, RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act), and the common law. This matter is subject to a motion to dismiss. RBS Holdings N.V. provides a range of banking products and financial services primarily in Europe and Asia. The company was founded in 1825 and is based in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. RBS Holdings N.V. is a subsidiary of RFS Holdings B.V. RBS HOLDINGS: Awaits Court OK on Forex Manipulation Case Accord --------------------------------------------------------------- RBS Holdings N.V. is awaiting court approval of a January 2017 agreement to settle two alleged class actions on foreign currency exchange manipulation filed in Quebec and Ontario, the Company disclosed in its Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. In September 2015, certain members of RBS Group (including RBS N.V.), as well as a number of other financial institutions, were named as defendants in two purported class actions filed in Ontario and Quebec on behalf of persons in Canada who entered into foreign exchange transactions or who invested in funds that entered into foreign exchange transactions. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the Canadian Competition Act by conspiring to manipulate the prices of currency trades. In January 2017, RBS Group reached an agreement in principle to settle these matters for approximately CAD 13 million, subject to settlement documentation and court approval. Certain other foreign exchange transaction related claims have been or may be threatened against RBS Group in other jurisdictions. RBS Group cannot predict whether any of these claims will be pursued, but expects that several may. RBS Holdings N.V. provides a range of banking products and financial services primarily in Europe and Asia. The company was founded in 1825 and is based in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. RBS Holdings N.V. is a subsidiary of RFS Holdings B.V. RENT-A-CENTER: "Blair" Rent Dispute Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Paula L. Blair, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., Rent-A-Center West, Inc. and Does 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. HG 17852522, (Cal. Super., March 13, 2017), was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on April 25, 2017, under Case No. 3:17-cv-02335. The complaint asserts violations of the Karnette Rental-Purchase Act and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act as well as unjust enrichment, usury and unfair competition under the California Business and Professions Code. Plaintiff alleges that she rented a video game system from the Defendants with a listed cash price of $476.10 and made a total payment of $1,299.48. However, Plaintiff alleges that the retail value of the video game system is really just between $254 to $279. Plaintiff rents out televisions, computers and appliances through its over 100 stores in California. Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory G. Iskander, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Treat Towers 1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Telephone: (925) 932-2468 Facsimile: (925) 946-9809 Email: giskander@littler.com RITE AID: Wins Summary Judgment in TCPA Suit Over Flu Vaccine ------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Wylie at The National Law Review reports that a New York U.S. District Court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant Rite Aid Headquarters Corporation in a putative Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") class action, holding that calls reminding customers about the flu vaccine were "health related" and therefore Rite Aid was not required to obtain prior express written consent before making the calls. Though the opinion was filed under seal on March 30, 2017, it was made public. In Zani v. Rite Aid Headquarters Corp., 14-cv-9701, plaintiff Robert Zani alleged that Rite Aid violated the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227, by sending prerecorded flu shot reminder notices to consumers' cell phones without prior express written consent. Zani had previously received a flu shot at a Rite Aid, and at the time he received this shot he signed a vaccine form and provided his cell phone number. Zani had also signed several written notices agreeing to be contacted by Rite Aid "about refill reminders . . . or health related benefits and services." Based on this undisputed evidence, Rite Aid argued, inter alia, that the reminder calls fell under the "Health Care Rule," 47 CFR 64.1200(a)(2), adopted under the TCPA in 2013. Under that rule, calls from health care providers that deliver a "health care message" are exempt from written consent requirements for prerecorded and autodialed calls made to cell phones. It further argued that Zani had consented to receiving the calls by providing his cell phone number to Rite Aid in connection with his previous flu shot. The court agreed with Rite Aid and found that the reminder calls "delivered a health care message." Analyzing the statutory and regulatory text and guidance, including the guidance on "health care message" calls contained in the FCC's 2015 Order, the court found three factors material to whether a call conveys a message within the scope of the Health Care Rule: (1) whether the call concerns a product or service that is health related, which would include administration of medication; (2) whether the call is made to a patient with whom the health care provider has an established health care relationship; and (3) whether the call concerns the individual health care needs of the patient recipient. The court further found that all three factors were present in the undisputed facts of the case. These factors were sufficient, though not necessary, to a finding that the call delivered a health care message and was subject to the Health Care Rule. Because the court found that the requirements for the Health Care Rule were met, Rite Aid was exempt from the TCPA's written consent requirements. Since it was exempt, Zani's argument that the call constituted "marketing" was irrelevant, because the Health Care Rule applies to any message, whether marketing or not, that otherwise is "health care related" as defined in the rule. Since it was undisputed that Rite Aid had Zani's prior consent of before making the call, the court granted summary judgment and denied Zani's motion for class certification as moot. Given that there are few judicial opinions interpreting the text and scope of the Health Care Rule, this decision gives some much- needed clarity on the application of the exemption. [GN] RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA: Coroners Sold Land Containing Gravesites -------------------------------------------------------------- Suzanne Hurt at The Press Enterprise reports that local authorities are once again investigating a Corona pauper's graveyard where allegations have again emerged that land containing gravesites has been sold and desecrated. On April 28, Riverside County District Attorney's office spokesman John Hall confirmed that an investigation is underway at Corona Sunnyslope Cemetery. No arrests have been made or charges filed two days after DA investigators, Corona police and the coroner's office were seen digging in the dirt at the cemetery's lower- level, fenced-off potter's field. "Please do not be alarmed at PD activity near Sunnyslope Cemetery," Corona Police tweeted April 26, adding that they were assisting the Riverside County DA's office with a search warrant. Land once part of the potter's field was sold in the 1980s, nine decades after Sunnyslope opened in 1892 as a nonprofit graveyard. A 1994 investigation by the state and Riverside County Coroner's Office failed to find proof of families' claims that potter's field land holding their relatives' remains had been sold and built on, covered with massive storage units on one side and a nursery and apartments on the other. In October 2015, 11 people represented by attorney Scott Schutzman -- schutzy@msn.com -- of the Law Offices of Scott E. Schutzman filed a class-action suit charging cemetery operators with selling land containing graves to the Islamic Society of Corona-Norco, which later buried at least 17 people there. Schutzman said then that more than 600 people were buried in the pauper's graveyard. A photo taken on April 26 by Riverside County Historic Commissioner Don Williamson, who's led historic tours at the cemetery for years, shows investigators working on land sold to the mosque. The District Attorney's Real Estate Fraud Task Force is conducting an investigation, confirmed Hall, who wouldn't answer questions about whether remains had been found in land that was sold. In October 2014, a Riverside County Grand Jury began investigating after cemetery operators used a tractor to grade the potter's field before selling land that could hold 400 plots to the mosque. A single granite tombstone and two crosses lying in the dirt were all that remained of dozens of crosses and tombstones in a cemetery once maintained by high school classes and Boy Scouts, including Corona Councilman Eugene Montanez. In July 2016, County Assessor Peter Aldana said Sunnyslope had been mistakenly classified as government-owned non-taxable property since 1978 and a Riverside County grand jury investigation found cemetery operators, whose nonprofit status was suspended by the state in 2007, hadn't paid property taxes or business license fees for years. Schutzman filed a motion April 15 to expand the class-action suit to include other families, including mosque members. The cemetery's attorney notified him on April 28 of plans to ask for a stay in the case in Riverside Superior Court on May 1. Cemetery officials could not be reached for comment. [GN] TESLA: Suit Says Autopilot Car Dangerously Defective ---------------------------------------------------- Linda Robertson at Miami Herald reports that the next time you find yourself driving near a Tesla, give a wide berth to the amazing car of the future. It is still very much of the present. A Davie lawyer, frustrated and alarmed by an autopilot with a mind of its own on his new USD108,000 Tesla, is one of the lead plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against the automaker claiming he was one of 50,000 customers who was sold a "dangerously defective" car that veered, lurched, slammed on the brakes for no reason or failed to slow when approaching other vehicles. John Kelner loved the Tesla S 90D electric sedan after a test drive to Jupiter and back, and he looked forward to using its Enhanced Autopilot system when he purchased it in December. But operating the car when the software is activated has been an unpredictable, frightening experience, he says. Something we don't need on the mean streets of South Florida: Self-driving cars that are even more incompetent than our infamously bad human drivers. "Rather than deliver safe and advanced autopilot features, Tesla has delivered software that causes vehicles to behave erratically," according to the suit -- the first to focus on self- driving car technology. "Contrary to what Tesla represented to them, buyers of affected vehicles have become beta testers of half-baked software that renders Tesla vehicles dangerous if engaged." Kelner is represented by automotive class action firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, which sued Volkswagen AG in the Dieselgate case. Tesla did not fulfill its marketing promise to deliver the "safest, most exhilarating sedan on the road" designed to make highway driving "stress-free" and sold cars with inoperable or nonexistent features "which are standard on many cars costing less than half the cost of a new Tesla," the suit said. Tesla responded by saying its upgraded features were to be activated by drivers over a staggered roll-out period. "This lawsuit is a disingenuous attempt to secure attorney's fees posing as a legitimate legal action, which is evidenced by the fact that the suit misrepresents many facts," Tesla said in a statement. "Many of the features this suit claims are 'unavailable' are in fact available, with more updates coming every month. We have always been transparent about the fact that Enhanced Autopilot software is a product that would roll out incrementally over time, and that features would continue to be introduced as validation is completed, subject to regulatory approval... The inaccurate and sensationalistic view of our technology put forth by this group is exactly the kind of misinformation that threatens to harm consumer safety." But Kelner claimed nothing worked from the minute he drove home from the dealership, not the Enhanced Autopilot system for which he paid USD5,000 extra nor the hyped Standard Safety Features. There was no Traffic Aware Cruise Control, no autosteer, no Automatic Emergency Braking, no auto-sensing wipers, no side- collision warnings, no automatic high-beam headlights. After two updates in February and March, he and other Tesla owners are still having problems, placing "drivers and occupants of Tesla vehicles at risk of serious injury or death," said the April 19 lawsuit. One owner said the autopilot reacts to highway overpasses by applying the brakes but doesn't brake for cars stopped in front of it at stoplights. A federal investigation of a 2016 fatal crash in Florida involving a Tesla Model S on autopilot concluded the car had no safety defects. The car was going 74 mph when it drove under an 18-wheel tractor-trailer hauling blueberries and making a left turn across U.S. 27 near Williston. Driver Joshua Brown of Canton, Ohio -- who took no evasive action and did not apply his brakes -- was killed when the roof was torn off. The truck driver told police he heard a Harry Potter movie playing in the car. Tesla said its sensors didn't detect the white truck against a bright sky and the high ride height of the truck caused the car to pass underneath it. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration also investigated dozens of other Tesla crashes and did not find "any incidents in which the systems did not perform as designed." In many cases, "driver behavior factors" were to blame. Drivers were distracted, driving too fast for conditions or confused about the system's responsibility. Tesla's genius chief and electric car pioneer Elon Musk says there are fewer crashes per miles driven on autopilot than in miles driven by humans, and experts agree that someday completely self- driving vehicles will make our roads safer. "Yes, driverless cars are going to have accidents, but they're going to have fewer accidents than humans," Hod Lipson, a professor of mechanical engineering at Columbia University, told the Los Angeles Times. "And unlike humans, driverless cars are going to keep getting better, halving the number of accidents per mile every so many months. The sooner we get on that exponential trajectory, the better." The NHTSA noted a 40 percent drop in crashes after an automatic steering feature was included in the Teslas. But its January report cautioned that autopilot systems are not meant to replace human drivers with robots. Drivers must be continually and fully attentive with hands on the wheel even when self-driving features are engaged, and automakers must design cars "with the inattentive driver in mind," as well as provide better education on the limitations of the cars, the report said. Autonomous self-driving cars are on the way. Apple, Google, Uber, Ford, Toyota, General Motors, Volkswagen and Tesla were among the companies that asked the state of California to amend its policies on the development and testing of self-driving cars. They're all engaged in a furious technological race, with some projecting 2020 or 2021 for the cars' debut. These smart navigators could precipitate a transformation for metropolises like Miami, where choked roadways and aggressive driving habits negatively impact our mental health and blood pressure. Flying cars could be next, although the fantasy of this vision from "The Jetsons," "Blade Runner," "Back to the Future" and "Star Wars" hasn't made much practical progress due to considerable obstacles, including the limits of the air traffic control system. Silicon Valley startups (including Larry Page's Kitty Hawk), aerospace firm Airbus and the government of Dubai are among those testing models today. A Slovakian company has a proposal for personal flying machine that would cost USD1.3 million. Uber's "Urban Air Mobility" concept includes on-demand flying taxis. [GN] SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces "Jacobs" Suit in W.D. Kentucky --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Samsung Electronics America, Inc. The case is captioned as Randa Jacobs, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., The Home Depot, Inc., Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Best Buy Co., Inc., and Sears Holding Corporation, Case No. 3:17-cv-00272-DJH (W.D. Ken., Apr. 28, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge David J. Hale. Headquartered in Ridgefield Park, NJ, Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (SEA), is a recognized innovation leader in consumer electronics design and technology. A wholly owned subsidiary of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., SEA delivers a broad range of digital consumer electronics, mobile products and wearables, wireless infrastructure, IT and home appliance products. Samsung is the market leader for HDTVs in the U.S and one of America's fastest growing home appliance brand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John S. Friend, Esq. Robert W. Bishop, Esq. Tyler Z. Korus, Esq. BISHOP FRIEND, PSC 6520 Glenridge Park, Suite 6 Louisville, KY 40222-9998 Telephone: (502) 425 2600 E-mail: louisvillelaw22@gmail.com firm@bishoplegal.net tyler@bishoplegal.net SAN PIETRO: Faces "Carchi" Suit in Southern District of New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against San Pietro Restaurant Inc. The case is styled as Jose Carchi, Marco Vasquez, Flavio Caisaguano, Jesus Castillo, Luiz Romero de Jesus, Manuel Maneiro Wilian Argudo, Freddy Vazquez, Sergio Llanos, and Charles Aliaga, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. San Pietro Restaurant Inc., doing business as San Pietro Restaurant, Sistina Restaurant Inc., doing business as Sistina, Gerardo Bruno, Giuseppe Bruno, and Cosimo Bruno, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03160 (S.D.N.Y., Apr. 28, 2017). San Pietro Restaurant was founded in 1992. The company's line of business includes the retail sale of prepared foods and drinks for on-premise consumption.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. SIGNET JEWELERS: Firemen's Fund Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Irving Firemen's Relief & Retirement System, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Signet Jewelers Limited, Mark S. Light and Michael Barnes, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00875 (N.D. Tex., March 28, 2017), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on April 20, 2017, under Case No. 1:17-cv- 02845. Signet engages in the retail sale of diamond jewelry and watches in the United States, Canada, Puerto Rico, the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and the Channel Islands. Irving Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund allege that they purchased Signet common stock at artificially inflated prices. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. Jamie J. McKey, Esq. Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC McKinney Avenue, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75204 Tel: (214) 744-3000 Fax: (214) 744-3015 (fax) Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com - and - David C. Walton, Esq. Spencer A. Burkholz, Esq. Rachel L. Jensen, Esq. 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-8498 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Fax: (619) 231-7423 Email: davew@rgrdlaw.com sburkholz@rgrdlaw.com Defendant is represented by: Paul R. Genender, Esq. WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 200 Crescent Court, Suite 300 Dallas, TX 75201 Tel: (214) 746-7700 Fax: (214) 746-7777 Email: paul.genender@weil.com SPOKANE, WA: "Trevino" Suit v. Social Health Service Filed ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bob Ferguson. The case is titled as Francis Anthony Trevino, Individually and on behalf of those persons similarly situated Petitioners, the Plaintiff, v. Bob Ferguson, Attorney General of Washington; Triplet, Judge for Spokane County, Superior Court of Spokane County; Department of Social Health Services; and Incorporated ACC and DOC; Case No. 2:17-cv-00153-SMJ (E.D. Wash., Apr. 27, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr. Spokane County is a county located in the U.S. state of Washington. As of the 2010 census the population was 471,221, making it the fourth-most populous county in Washington state.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. SRM ENTERPRISES: Faces "Hill" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SRM ENTERPRISES, LLC. The case is titled as NAFEESA HILL, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND SIMILARLY SITUATED EMPLOYEES, the Plaintiff, v. SRM ENTERPRISES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01927-MAK (E.D. Pa., Apr. 27, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Mark A. Kearney. SRM Enterprises is in the Business Services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter D. Winebrake, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC Twining Office Center, Suite 211 715 Twining Road Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884 2491 Facsimile: (215) 884 2492 E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com SYRACUSE, NY: Winston Seeks 2nd Circuit Review of N.D.N.Y. Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Jacqueline Winston filed an appeal from a District Court order dated March 30, 2017, in the lawsuit titled Winston v. City of Syracuse, Case No. 16-cv-235, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York (Syracuse). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff brought the lawsuit against the Defendants for alleged violation of the Civil Rights Act. The appellate case is captioned as Winston v. City of Syracuse, Case No. 17-1017, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Jacqueline Winston, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Joshua T. Cotter, Esq. LEGAL SERVICES OF CENTRAL NEW YORK 472 South Salina Street Syracuse, NY 13202 Telephone: (315) 703-6579 Facsimile: (315) 475-2706 E-mail: jcotter@lscny.org Defendants-Appellees City of Syracuse and Deborah Somers, in her official capacity as the Commissioner of Water, are represented by: John A. Sickinger, Esq. CITY OF SYRACUSE OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL 300 City Hall 233 East Washington Street Syracuse, NY 13202 Telephone: (315) 448-8400 E-mail: jsickinger@syrgov.net TACONIC: Judge Denies Dismissal of Water Pollution Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Brenda Lyons at Times Union reports a state Supreme Court justice has upheld a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of Petersburgh residents against a company blamed for polluting local water supplies with a toxic manufacturing chemical. In declining to dismiss the case against Taconic, a plastics company, Justice Patrick J. McGrath cited a recent decision in U.S. District Court in a similar case involving a federal class- action lawsuit filed on behalf of dozens of residents in Hoosick Falls. In both cases, the legal arguments center on whether people who have elevated levels of PFOA in their blood have suffered an injury. The issue is expected to eventually be decided by the state Court of Appeals. The cases also claim that property values have been diminished by the companies blamed for polluting water supplies and, possibly, soil in and around Hoosick Falls and Petersburgh. In Hoosick Falls, a McCaffrey Street plant operated by Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics has been a focus of the contamination in that community. The plant is a short distance from the village's well fields. McGrath said the underlying legal arguments in the claims were addressed in a lengthy decision in February by U.S. District Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn, who struck down arguments to dismiss the case that were filed by attorneys for Saint-Gobain and Honeywell International, which acquired a company that had previously operated the manufacturing plant owned by Saint-Gobain since 1999. Both lawsuits seek long-term medical monitoring for people who have elevated levels of the toxic chemical in their blood and may be at increased risk for diseases such as cancer. "Judge Kahn points out the 'absurdity' of requiring plaintiffs to manifest physical symptoms before receiving medical monitoring, which would defeat the purpose of that remedy," McGrath wrote. "As aptly noted by Judge Kahn, the entire point of medical monitoring is to provide testing that would detect a patient's disease before she manifests an obvious symptomatic illness, thus allowing earlier treatment that carries a better chance of success." Stephen G. Schwarz, an attorney for plaintiffs in both class- action lawsuits, said the Petersburgh case was filed on behalf of anyone whose private wells have been contaminated with PFOA, or who have used the town's small public water system, which also was contaminated. Schwarz said both class-action lawsuits are filed on behalf of people who were exposed to PFOA in their water but have not experienced any adverse health effects or diseases as a result of the exposure. There are dozens of residents in both communities who have suffered serious health problems that Schwarz said may be attributed to PFOA exposure, but those cases will be filed as individual personal-injury claims, he said. "Every personal injury case is different," he said. Taconic is being represented in the state case by Thomas R. Smith, an attorney with Bond, Schoeneck & King. The company's primary business is manufacturing products coated perfluorinated chemicals, including those that contained PFOA. The lawsuit alleges PFOA contaminated water supplies in and around Petersburgh when it was released from the smokestacks of the company's plant off Route 22. PFOA exposure has been linked to health problems, including testicular and kidney cancer and thyroid disease. [GN] TOWER HILL: MSPA Appeals S.D. Fla. Ct. Ruling to 11th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff MSPA Claims 1, LLC, filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled MSPA Claims 1, LLC v. Tower Hill Prime Insurance Company, Case No. 1:16-cv-20459-KMM, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The nature of suit is stated as overpayments under the Medicare Act. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit was originally filed in the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County (Case No. 15-029859-CA-01), and was removed to the District Court. Tower Hill Prime Insurance provides Florida homeowners insurance. The Company is based in Gainesville, Florida. The appellate case is captioned as MSPA Claims 1, LLC v. Tower Hill Prime Insurance Company, Case No. 17-11549, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- The Appellant's brief is due on or before May 17, 2017; -- The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of the Appellant's brief; and -- Appellee's CIP is due on or before May 5, 2017, as to Appellee Tower Hill Prime Insurance Company.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, a Florida limited company, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated Medicare Advantage Organizations in the State of Florida other Florida Healthcare Plus, is represented by: Frank Carlos Quesada, Esq. MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM 5000 SW 75th Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33155 Telephone: (305) 614-2222 Facsimile: (866) 582-0907 E-mail: fquesada@msprecovery.com - and - Rebecca Rubin-del Rio, Esq. John H. Ruiz, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF LA LEY CON JOHN H. RUIZ 5000 SW 75th Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33155 Telephone: (305) 614-2222 Facsimile: (649) 649-6070 E-mail: rdelrioruizlaw@aol.com jruiz@lawofficeslaley.com Defendant-Appellee TOWER HILL PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY, a Florida Profit Corporation, is represented by: Joshua D. Lerner, Esq. Nicole Sieb Smith, Esq. Caitlin Marie Trowbridge, Esq. RUMBERGER KIRK & CALDWELL, PA 80 SW 8th Street, Suite 3000 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 358-5577 Facsimile: (305) 371-7580 E-mail: jlerner@rumberger.com nsmith@rumberger.com ctrowbridge@rumberger.com TSG COLLECTIONS: Faces "Gendelberg" Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TSG Collections, LLC. The case is captioned as Galina Gendelberg, GALINA GENDELBERG on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. TSG Collections, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02541 (E.D.N.Y., Apr. 28, 2017). The Defendant is debt collector firm.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. UNION LOCAL 237: Discriminates Minority Employees, Wynn Says ------------------------------------------------------------ BRIAN WYNN, JOHN WILLIAMS, AWILDA GUZMAN, JOSE OTERO, KEVIN FULTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. UNION LOCAL 237, I.B.T, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03167 (S.D.N.Y., Apr. 28, 2017), seeks to recover retroactive and prospective lost wage damages, reimbursable expenses, attorney's fees and costs. The Defendant through their agents, servants, and/or employees, violated Plaintiffs' rights as protected under Title VII, and violated Plaintiffs' rights as protected under the New York City Human Rights Law, Administrative Code. The Defendant has a policy and/or practice which disparately impacted Black and other Minority employees, when it came to the adequacy of their pay; and their right to receive commensurate pay as Plasterer Tenders/Plasterer Helpers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lee Nuwesra, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF LEE NUWESRA One Grand Central Place 60 East 42nd Street. Suite 1132 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 370 8707 E-mail: lnuwesra@optonline.net UNITED AIRLINES: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in "Vidrio" Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Felicia Vidrio and Paul Bradley filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit titled Felicia Vidrio, et al. v. United Airlines, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-07985-PSG-MRW, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. The lawsuit alleges labor-related issues. The appellate case is captioned as Felicia Vidrio, et al. v. United Airlines, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-55471, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by May 8, 2017; -- Transcript is due on August 4, 2017; -- Appellants Paul Bradley and Felicia Vidrio's opening brief is due on September 13, 2017; -- Appellee United Airlines, Inc.'s answering brief is due on October 13, 2017; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants FELICIA VIDRIO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and PAUL BRADLEY, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Kirk D. Hanson, Esq. JACKSON HANSON LLP 2790 Truxtun Rd. San Diego, CA 92106 Telephone: (619) 523-9001 Facsimile: (619) 523-9002 E-mail: hansonlaw@cox.net Defendant-Appellee UNITED AIRLINES, INC., is represented by: Adam P. KohSweeney, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Two Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 984-8700 Facsimile: (415) 984-8701 E-mail: akohsweeney@omm.com - and - Robert Alan Siegel, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 400 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 430-6005 E-mail: rsiegel@omm.com UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissed Claims vs. Unit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) cases had taken an appeal from a district court's December 22, 2016 ruling, which dismissed the claims against a United Technologies Corporation subsidiary, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc. (UTCFS) was named as a defendant in numerous putative class actions that were filed on behalf of purported classes of persons who alleged that third- party entities placed "robocalls" and/or placed calls to numbers listed on the "Do Not Call Registry" on behalf of UTCFS in contravention of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). In each putative class action suit, plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and monetary damages. Each violation under the TCPA provides for US$500 in statutory damages or up to US$1,500 for any willful violation. In August 2016, UTCFS moved for summary judgment in the Northern District of West Virginia, the court in which all of the pending TCPA cases have been consolidated, arguing that the third parties who placed the calls in alleged violation of the TCPA were not acting as UTCFS' agents and, therefore, UTCFS could not be vicariously liable for those calls under the TCPA. On December 22, 2016, the district court granted UTCFS' summary judgment motion and dismissed the claims against UTCFS. The plaintiffs appealed the decision on February 14, 2017. United Technologies Corporation provides technology products and services to building systems and aerospace industries worldwide. It was founded in 1934 and is headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Seeks Review of Ruling in "Peterson" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants UnitedHealth Group Inc., United HealthCare Services, Inc., United Healthcare Insurance Company, United Healthcare Service LLC, UnitedHealth Group Inc., United HealthCare Services, Inc., United Healthcare Insurance Company, and Optum, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling relating to the lawsuit entitled Louis J. Peterson, D.C., et al. v. UnitedHealth Group Inc., et al., Case No. 0:14-cv-02101-PJS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks to redress the Defendants' alleged repeated violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act resulting from United's systematic failure to make benefit payments that are due and owing under United Plans. The appellate case is captioned as Louis J. Peterson, D.C., et al. v. UnitedHealth Group Inc., et al., Case No. 17-1744, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript is due on or before May 16, 2017; -- Appendix is due on May 26, 2017; -- Brief of Appellants Optum, Inc., United HealthCare Services, Inc., United Healthcare Insurance Company, United Healthcare Service LLC and UnitedHealth Group Inc. is due on May 26, 2017; -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the Court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant; and -- Appellant reply brief is due 14 days from the date the Court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the appellee brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees Louis J. Peterson, D.C., on behalf of Patients E, I, K, L, N, P, Q and R, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and Riverview Health Institute, on its own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. Richard Allen Lockridge, Esq. Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq. Kristen Marttila Marttila, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Ave, S, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401-0000 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com ralockridge@locklaw.com riebekh@locklaw.com kgmarttila@locklaw.com - and - Vincent N. Buttaci, Esq. John W. Leardi, Esq. Paul D. Werner, Esq. BUTTACI & LEARDI, LLC 103 Carnegie Center, Suite 323 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (609) 799-5150 Facsimile: (609) 799-5180 E-mail: vnbuttaci@buttacilaw.com jwleardi@buttacilaw.com pdwerner@buttacilaw.com - and - Jason Cowart, Esq. Brian Hufford, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 399 Park Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (646) 746-8840 E-mail: jcowart@zuckerman.com dbhufford@zuckerman.com - and - William K. Meyer, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 100 East Pratt Street, Suite 2440 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 332-1240 Facsimile: (410) 659-0436 E-mail: wmeyer@zuckerman.com - and - Anthony F. Maul, Esq. THE MAUL FIRM, P.C. 68 Jay Street, Suite 201 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (646) 263-5780 Facsimile: (866) 488-7936 E-mail: afmaul@maulfirm.com Defendants-Appellants UnitedHealth Group Inc., United HealthCare Services, Inc., United Healthcare Insurance Company, United Healthcare Service LLC, UnitedHealth Group Inc., United HealthCare Services, Inc., United Healthcare Insurance Company, and Optum, Inc., are represented by: Brian D. Boyle, Esq. Jonathan D. Hacker, Esq. Gregory F. Jacob, Esq. Michael J. Walsh, Jr., Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1625 Eye Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 383-5327 Facsimile: (202) 383-5414 E-mail: bboyle@omm.com jhacker@omm.com gjacob@omm.com mwalsh@omm.com - and - Anton Metlitsky, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036-0000 Telephone: (212) 326-2000 Facsimile: (212) 326 2061 E-mail: ametlitsky@omm.com UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Faces "Kuykendall" Wage and Hour Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- TANESHA KUYKENDALL, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE, LP, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendants, Case No. SC127449 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 27, 2017), seeks to recover civil penalties under the Labor Code. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from November 2013 until September 2016, as a non-exempt security guard. The Plaintiff was required to execute an On-Duty Meal Period Agreement. This required Plaintiff to take all meal periods while on duty because, according to the Agreement, the nature of her work "prevents [employees] from being relieved of all duty during the meal period." As evidenced by the express terms of the Agreement, Plaintiff could not be relieved of all duties because of the nature of their work. This same rationale prevented employees from being relieved of all duties during their rest periods as well. As a result, Defendants did not authorize and permit Plaintiff to take all duty-free rest periods required by California law. Moreover, for those shifts for which Defendants did not authorize or permit all duty-free rest periods required by California law, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff with an hour of premium pay at the employees' regular rate of pay, as required by Labor Code. As a result, Plaintiff was deprived of all rest period premium wages earned. As a further result of Defendants' failure to pay all earned rest period premium wages, Defendants issued inaccurate wage statements, and did not pay Plaintiff all wages owed at the time of her separation from employment with Defendants. The Defendants committed violations of the Labor Code, and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 4.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq. Andrew J. Rowbotham, Esq. Stephanie A. Kierig, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 2274 East Maple Ave. El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292 2350 Facsimile: (424) 292 2355 E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com arowbotham@haineslawgroup.com skierig@haineslawgroup.com USCB INC: "Gallups" Sues Over Illegal Collections Calls ------------------------------------------------------- Robert Gallups, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. USCB, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-at- 00429, (E.D. Cal., April 20, 2017), seeks actual damages, statutory damages for willful and negligent violations, costs and reasonable attorney's fees and such other and further relief resulting from negligent violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, willful violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. USCB, Inc. is debt collection company who repeatedly called Plaintiff using an automatic telephone dialing system despite Plaintiff's express revocation of consent to be called. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (877) 206-4741 Fax: 866-633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com VITAL RECOVERY: Faces "Sabin" Suit in Eastern District New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vital Recovery Services, Inc. The case is captioned as Marisa J. Sabin and Lisa Testa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Vital Recovery Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02557 (E.D.N.Y., Apr. 28, 2017). Vital Recovery is a debt collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Sanders Law, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203 7600 Facsimile: (516) 281 -7601 E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com WINTERS LANDSCAPE: Settlement in "Magana" Suit Has Initial OK ------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Judge Susan E. Cox entered an order in the lawsuit entitled Alfredo Magana, the Plaintiff, v. Winters Landscape, Inc., et al., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04983 (N.D. Ill.), granting a joint motion for preliminary approval of the parties' stipulation and agreement to settle class action claims and for approval of class certification. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on April 12, 2017, no appearance was required on the motion. Parties are to submit proposed order to the Court. A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0mmxtvOi ZELTIQ AESTHETICS: Faces Deceptive Advertising Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Kat Greene at Law360 reports a recently acquired Allergan PLC unit is capitalizing on a confusing element of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's marketing process to trick customers into thinking its fat-freezing system has the agency's approval, according to a proposed class action in California on April 27. Carmen Otero and Abbey Lerman say Zeltiq Aesthetics Inc., which was recently picked up by Allergan in a USD2.5 billion deal, is marketing its CoolSculpting system as being FDA-cleared, which would lead most customers to think it's been FDA-approved, a higher-level categorization, according to their suit in Los Angeles Superior Court. The FDA can "clear" a device for sale under a process in which the company selling the device sends the agency a premarket notification that explains the product is substantially similar to something else that's already on the market, according to the agency. But being "cleared" doesn't mean a product has been approved, which requires proving to the FDA that a device is safe and effective, the customers noted. Zeltiq promises prospective CoolSculpting customers its device has been FDA-cleared, but it's playing on the average person's likely confusion over what it means to be "cleared" versus "approved," Otero and Lerman said. "In order to increase revenue and gain an advantage over competitors, defendants exploit, to their benefit, the lack of understanding and confusion of FDA terminology by consumers and employees at the various medical offices, spas and other entities that administer CoolSculpting treatments," the customers said. Zeltiq's CoolSculpting system promises to freeze certain fat cells to induce a natural elimination of them from the body, according to marketing language posted in the complaint. The company says in its marketing that CoolSculpting has been cleared by the FDA, but doesn't explain anywhere on its materials that being FDA-cleared isn't the same as being approved, according to the suit. That alleged deception amounts to false advertising even by the FDA's own standards, the customers said. The FDA instructs companies whose products have been "cleared" that creating the impression the product has been approved is misbranding. Lerman got several CoolSculpting procedures starting in 2015, and Otero got hers in February of this year, according to the complaint. Neither user would have paid as much for the service if they knew the method hadn't undergone the stricter approval process, they said. The cost for a typical CoolSculpting personal treatment plan ranges from USD2,000 to USD4,000 depending on the number of areas treated, Zeltiq's website says. Allergan said in February it would acquire Zeltiq in a USD2.47 billion deal, giving the pharmaceutical giant deeper access to the USD4 billion body contouring industry. A Zeltiq shareholder lodged a proposed investor class action over the deal in March, court records show. The transaction has since closed, according to Zeltiq's website, which explains that its acquisition by Allergan is complete. Representatives for Zeltiq and Allergan didn't immediately respond to requests for comment on April 28. Otero and Lerman are represented by Lee A. Cirsch -- lee.cirsh@capstonelawyers.com -- Robert K. Friedl -- Robert.friedl@capstonelawyers.com -- and Trisha K. Monesi -- trisha.monesi@capstonelawyers.com -- of Capstone Law APC. Counsel information for Zeltiq couldn't be immediately determined. The case is Carmen Otero et al. v. Zeltiq Aesthetics Inc., case number BC659192, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. [GN] * Fin'l Advisers Face Increased Risk of Class Action Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- Brad Allen at Star Tribune reports John Bogle, Vanguard founder and the creator of index funds for the masses, said, "Whether markets are efficient or inefficient, investors as a group must fall short of the market return by the amount of the costs they incur." Jim Christian, a Lakeville financial planner argues that when it comes to cost of investing, however, the devil is very much in the details. He points out that there are only three ways to pay for financial service advice: a flat or hourly fee, as a percent of assets under management or a commission on the purchase of an investment and "every adviser should offer all three options." Bogle's simple math underlies the logic behind the fiduciary rule issued by the Obama Department of Labor (DOL). The rule sought to align the way all financial advisers operate when offering retirement investment advice, eliminating the financial incentive for some to recommend higher cost investments that, as Bogle and others would argue, hurt investors. While attempts by industry groups to block implementation through the courts have failed, the rule is in limbo while the Trump administration considers changing or scrapping it altogether. But as I've written in previous columns, it's already set in motion changes across the financial advice industry. Jim reached out in response to a recent column and had a lot to say. Under existing rules, advisers can recommend a mutual fund for example, that has higher fees and expenses than an alternative fund but for which they receive a sales commission, as long as it is deemed "appropriate" to an investor's situation. Under the stalled DOL rule, "appropriate" would be replaced by a "best interest" standard where an adviser would be prohibited from making a commission-compensated recommendation unless they disclosed their fee arrangement and the client agreed. In response, some mutual fund companies are introducing new share classes that either have no sales charge (clean shares) or a flat 2.5 percent sales charge (T shares) that is viewed as "DOL- compliant." In addition, many firms are moving away from sales- oriented, commission-based client relationship to compensation based on a percent of assets. "It's a money grab," Christian said, pointing to a recent Wall Street Journal article describing how large firms such as Merrill Lynch and J.P. Morgan are moving an asset-based model. This approach, the Journal points out, allows these large firms to better compete with smaller independent advisers who provide more personalized financial planning and advice. More importantly for investors, an asset-based pay model can be more profitable for an adviser over time than a commission-based account, both Christian and the Journal point out. That is particularly true for a smaller "buy and hold" investors who don't rebalance their portfolios, according to Morningstar Research. Christian has a much different take on how the industry should respond, arguing that "complete transparency" over fees would be a better approach than herding advisers into one fee structure. While nothing had prevented advisers from being transparent in the past, Christian acknowledged that past practices of some brokers, including excessive trading or "churning" to earn extra commissions, has tarnished the reputations of financial advisers generally. Even though the DOL rule is on hold, he said he'll change the way he offers IRO rollover advice, presenting "a list of investment alternatives, pros and cons of each option and the one we recommend." In the past, he would have done this analysis but not necessarily shared it with clients. More important to Christian is the increased risk of class-action litigation he believes advisers face under a common fiduciary standard. Even complaints resolved in an adviser's favor would remain on their record, potentially harming their reputations. While some industry observers have argued the class-action concern is overblown, they point out the risk of losing arbitration cases is increased. Critics of the proposed DOL rule have also argued that moving away from commissions would leave smaller investors without access to financial advice, since a percentage fee on a small account would not justify an adviser's time. Christian said about half his client accounts pay based on a percent of assets, 45 percent are commission-based and only 5 percent are hourly. His largest accounts average more than CAD300,000 and "receive service commensurate with their fees." He also has a few dozen small accounts, averaging CAD10,000 that receive "basic" level of service. He is concerned that an increased risk of litigation would cause many advisers to "orphan" these smallest investors. While saying he is committed to serving all his clients, if compliance risk increases on small clients he joked: "I'll have to resign and send them to [Obama's Secretary of Labor] Tom Perez." [GN] * Foley & Lardner Comments on Challenging Limited Issue Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- Michael D. Leffel, Esq., and Kelsey K. Wong, Esq., at Foley & Lardner LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, wrote that a class action that aggregates the claims of individual plaintiffs against a common defendant can promote judicial economy and maximize efficiency. However, even the pursuit of class certification can promote abuse. In the words of Judge Henry Friendly, class actions can at times result in "blackmail settlements," where even defendants with meritorious defenses feel compelled to settle based on the enormous threat of liability that a class action can present. See In re Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc., 51 F.3d 1293, 1298 (7th Cir. 1995) (quoting Henry J. Friendly, Federal Jurisdiction: A General View 120 (1973)). In part to avoid this abuse, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure strike a balance that permits certification of damages classes under Rule 23(b)(3) only when, among other things, common issues predominate over individualized issues necessary to resolve the case. There is, however, a growing trend that impacts this delicate balance and is changing how many class actions are litigated, and the tactics and strategies employed by all parties. Plaintiffs, and some courts, have increasingly pointed to Rule 23(c)(4) to certify what are called "limited issue" classes. Rule 23(c)(4) provides that, "when appropriate, an action may be brought or maintained as a class action with respect to particular issues." Limited issue certification under this Rule seeks to isolate an issue (or certain issues) for class treatment even if class members' claim for liability or recovery might ultimately be adjudicated individually. The separation of individual issues not capable of class-wide resolution allows a class action to move forward even when it would not survive examination under the mandate of Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance test -- which requires common issues in the class action as a whole to predominate over issues that would require individualized adjudication. A New Focus On Limited Issue Classes While the potential for limited issue classes has been around for a while, it gained increased attention in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, which brought teeth back to Rule 23(a)'s commonality requirement, many commentators viewed the case as a real threat to class certification. As the Court held, "[w]hat matters to class certification. . . is not the raising of common 'questions' -- even in droves -- but, rather, the capacity of a classwide proceeding to generate common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation." Some commentators were concerned that the Dukes decision threatened the very viability of class actions. These concerns may have been overstated, but it has caused some commentators to advocate for limited issue class certification under Rule 23(c)(4) as a way to promote the continued viability of class actions. For example, Professor John C. Coffee has said, "the best hope for survival of the class action in money damages cases may lie in the expansion of issue class certification under Rule 23(c)(4)." Under Professor Coffee's view, partial certification is a process whereby "the defendant's liability could be established at the class trial." Then, "individual issues, such as reliance, proximate causation, or damages could be established in separate proceedings." Other commentators stress that this approach goes too far, and is inconsistent with federal law. Varying Approaches Of The Circuits Several courts have interpreted Rule 23(c)(4) to permit the bifurcation of class issues and certain issues that must be resolved on an individual basis in a Rule 23(b)(3) damages class. However, courts have disagreed on the proper scope and interpretation of the Rule. Until recently, the Fifth Circuit in Castano v. American Tobacco rejected the use of Rule 23(c)(4) to overcome (b)(3)'s predominance requirement: "Severing the defendants' conduct from reliance under rule 23(c)(4) does not save the class action. A district court cannot manufacture predominance through the nimble use of subdivision (c)(4). The proper interpretation of the interaction between subdivisions (b)(3) and (c)(4) is that . . . (c)(4) is a housekeeping rule that allows courts to sever the common issues for a class trial." Notably, the Fifth Circuit's more recent decision in In re Deepwater Horizon, has been cited as a retreat from Castano and evidence of a more expansive approach, stating that Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement can still be met if the proceedings are structured to establish "liability on a class-wide basis, with separate hearings to determine -- if liability is established -- the damages of individual class members." Of course, separating the damages inquiry alone for individualized treatment is distinct from having mini-trials on issues of, for example, reliance or causation. Other circuits have been more supportive of limited issue class certification, although circuits have different approaches to determine when it is appropriate to certify a Rule 23(c)(4) class action that could not be certified under Rule 23(b)(3). The Second Circuit held in In re Nassau County Strip Search Cases that "a court may employ subsection (c)(4) to certify a class as to liability regardless of whether the claim as a whole satisfies Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement." The Second Circuit employed a material advancement standard, determining whether issue certification would "reduce the range of issues in dispute and promote judicial economy." The Third Circuit applies factors set forth in the American Legal Institute's Principles of the Law of Aggregate Litigation to determine whether certification of an issue class is proper. Courts are instructed to consider factors such as "the type of claim and issue in question; the overall complexity of the case; the efficiencies to be gained by granting partial certification; the substantive law underlying the claim," and more. Finally, the Seventh Circuit held that if a proposed class action contains "genuinely common issues, issues identical across all the claimants . . . the accuracy of the resolution of which is unlikely to be enhanced by repeated proceedings, then it makes good sense, especially when the class is large, to resolve those issues in one fell swoop while leaving the remaining, claimant-specific issues to individual follow-on proceedings." Potential Statutory and Rules Changes Regarding Limited Issue Classes The liberal interpretation of Rule 23(c)(4) in some circuits has been recognized as a concern by some scholars and congressional leaders alike. On March 9, 2017, the House of Representatives passed the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017 ("FCALA"). Now pending Senate approval, FCALA proposes various amendments to the judicial procedures that apply to federal court actions. Notably, FCALA would preclude courts from certifying particular issue class actions unless the entirety of the cause of action from which the particular issues arise satisfies Rule 23 requirements. An additional provision requiring that "each proposed class member suffer the same type and scope of injury" as the named plaintiff would result in substantially fewer certified issue classes as well. In stark contrast to the approach advocated by supporters of FCALA, the Rule 23 Subcommittee to the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules recently considered amendments that would make it far easier to certify a limited issue class. Perhaps recognizing the apparent conflict between the predominance requirement and limited issue certification, the Rule 23 Subcommittee contemplated an amendment that would eliminate the predominance requirement to obtain issue class certification under Rule 23(c)(4), making it easier to certify issue classes. The Subcommittee ultimately removed issue classes from consideration for rule changes, citing an evolving consensus in various circuits for Rule 23(c)(4) treatment "when appropriate." However, the proposed amendment by the Subcommittee parallels proposals by some practitioners and academics in support of a more expansive use of issue certification. Moving Forward Passage of FCALA would certainly change the landscape for issue class certification and provide clarity, shifting the focus back to the commonality and predominance of common issues in class actions over individual issues. Even if legislation does not pass, there may be changes in how courts interpret Rule 23 to permit limited issue certification and in how defendants approach class actions in this new era. First, as noted above, some commentators have argued against broadening limited issue certifications. Based on the Constitution, Rules Enabling Act, and historical practice, Professor Mark A. Perry has advocated an approach that would permit limited issue certification solely for liability and remedies since "Rule 23(c)(4) does not authorize certification or exclusion of more discrete claim elements or defenses." Under this approach, Professor Coffee's proposed expansion to encompass claim elements (such as causation or reliance) and defenses (such as knowledge and consent) would be precluded by the courts. Defendants may want to follow this approach in challenging the use of limited issue certification in their cases. Second, regardless of what is permitted to be included in a limited issue certification, defendants may change tactics and strategies to counter plaintiffs' counsel's evolving positions. There was a time (recognized by Judge Friendly) that even the threat of class certification could cause a defendant with a meritorious claim to settle rather than risk overwhelming liability. However, defendants may find that, even if a class is certified, if issues such as reliance, causation, or injury, are left for individualized adjudication, they may have reason to battle well beyond class certification. For example, perhaps a limited issue class will be certified, but a defendant may have strong arguments on the underlying merits, or plaintiffs may have serious problems with proving that a significant portions of the class relied on a representation. In those circumstances, it may be worth pushing plaintiffs to really prove their case for each class member. At a minimum, in those circumstances, plaintiffs' counsel will still have a significant amount of work to do to truly "prevail" in any meaningful way, which can impact case strategy and settlement. As the Senate debates FCALA, and the courts continue to consider how best to utilize limited issue certifications, we will keep you updated on interesting developments. [GN] Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Cir. Vacates Foster Wheeler Summary Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Geraldine Hilt appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant Foster Wheeler, LLC. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded the case. The Ninth Circuit held that taking the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, Charles Ay's expert opinion (along with other evidence presented by Plaintiff) was sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Robert Hilt was exposed to asbestos fibers from insulation supplied by Foster Wheeler. The district court erred in discounting Ay's expert testimony on the ground that he lacked personal knowledge of the ships, boilers, or insulation at issue, the Ninth Circuit said. An expert may render an opinion based "on facts or data . . . that the expert has been made aware of," Fed. R. Evid. 703, and may render an opinion that is "not based on firsthand knowledge or observation," the Ninth Circuit pointed out. Ay's opinion that the boilers on the U.S.S. Bradley and U.S.S. Constellation were manufactured by Foster Wheeler, that the insulation supplied by Foster Wheeler for those boilers contained asbestos, and that at least some of the original asbestos- containing insulation was present in those boilers at the time Hilt was exposed to insulation dust was based on Ay's specialized knowledge, his extensive experience with asbestos-containing materials in Naval ships, and facts and data in the record sufficient to support his opinion, the Ninth Circuit pointed out. Ay's opinion was neither speculative nor inadmissible under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Ninth Circuit said. Therefore, the district court erred in granting Foster Wheeler's motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff's negligence and products-liability claims on the ground that no reasonable jury could conclude from the evidence that Hilt was exposed to asbestos from insulation manufactured or supplied by Foster Wheeler, the Ninth Circuit concluded. The district court did not determine whether there was a genuine issue of material fact that Hilt's alleged exposure to asbestos- containing boiler insulation was a "substantial contributing factor in causing his injuries," and the Ninth Circuit declined to address this issue in the first instance. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit vacated the order granting summary judgment and remanded to the district court to consider any remaining grounds in Foster Wheeler's motion for summary judgment. The appeals case is GERALDINE HILT, as Wrongful Death Heir, and as Successor-in-Interest to Robert Hill, Deceased, Plaintiff- Appellant, v. FOSTER WHEELER, LLC, FKA Foster Wheeler Corporation, Defendant-Appellee, No. 15-17301 (9th Cir.). A full-text copy of the Memorandum dated April 26, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/s78zjS from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Take-Home Suit vs. Avondale Remanded to State Ct ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Lance M. Africk of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana remanded the case captioned STEPHEN R. LEGENDRE, ET AL., v. HUNTINGTON INGALLS INC. ET AL., SECTION I, Civil Action No. 17-2162 (E.D. La.), to the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. For over half a century, asbestos -- prized for its durability and high-heat resistance -- was widely used in shipyards. Mary Jane Wilde's father, husband, and brother worked in shipyards which meant that they were exposed to asbestos on the job. Mary Jane, however, never worked in a shipyard. But that did not stop her from developing and then ultimately dying from mesothelioma. Before she passed away, Mary Jane filed suit in Louisiana state court against the shipyards where her relatives worked. Her suit alleged that she was exposed to asbestos each night when her relatives returned home from the shipyard and that those exposures caused her mesothelioma. Huntington Ingalls ("Avondale"), a defendant in Mary Jane's lawsuit, tried to remove her case to this Court on the basis of federal officer removal jurisdiction. Judge Africk held that, at best, Avondale demonstrates that the federal government required Avondale to use asbestos when building ships. Under Savoie v. Huntington Ingalls, 817 F.3d 457 (2016), the government's responsibility for the existence of the asbestos at the shipyard is insufficiently related to the negligence claims challenging Avondale's discretionary decisions regarding safety precautions to serve as the basis for federal officer removal. Therefore, although Avondale has preserved the argument that the Fifth Circuit's opinions in Savoie and Bartel v. Alcoa Steamship Co., 805 F.3d 169 (5th Cir. 2015), are wrongly decided, the Court has no choice but to follow Fifth Circuit law as it currently exists and remand this matter to Louisiana state court. A full-text copy of the Order and Reasons dated April 25, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/l7zz1X from Leagle.com. Stephen R Legendre, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel & Clement. Stephen R Legendre, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement. Paul L. Legendre, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel & Clement. Paul L. Legendre, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement. Paul L. Legendre, Plaintiff, represented by Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement. Ragus J. Legendre, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement. Percy J. Legendre, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. Eagle Inc, Defendant, represented by April Ann McQuillar, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Watson Redfearn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Janice M. Culotta, Simon, Peragine, Smith and Redfearn, LLP, Louis Oliver Oubre, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Susan Beth Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP. Puget Sound Commerce Center, Inc., Defendant, represented by Scott C. Seiler, Liskow & Lewis, Charles B. Wilmore, Liskow & Lewis, Patrick B. Reagin, Liskow & Lewis, Philip Dore, Liskow & Lewis & Tiffany L. Delery Davis, Liskow & Lewis. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher Kelly Lightfoot, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, Edward J. Lassus, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale & Richard J. Garvey, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale. Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association, Defendant, represented by Dawn Danna Marullo, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC. Uniroyal, Inc., Defendant, represented by Katherine Weatherly Emma Trotter, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP & Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP. Entergy Louisiana, L.L.C., Defendant, represented by Cory R. Cahn, Entergy Services, Inc. & Walter Scott Brown, Entergy Services, Inc. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Md. District Court Keen to Remand "Abrogast" ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge James K. Bredar of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland required defendants Georgia-Pacific LLC and MCIC, Inc., to show cause why the case captioned BARBARA ARBOGAST et al., Plaintiffs, v. GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC et al., Defendants, Civil No. JKB-14-4049 (D. Md.), should not be remanded to Maryland state court. Judge Bredar held that CSX Transportation, Inc., has shown that no genuine dispute of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the third-party complaints of Georgia-Pacific and MCIC for contribution. Having resolved all federal claims in the case, the case now returns to its prior posture -- before third-party complaints were filed -- of being under consideration for remand to Maryland state court of Plaintiffs' claims against Georgia-Pacific and MCIC, which are only supplemental claims under 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(a). A full-text copy of the Memorandum dated April 24, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/vAd9S5 from Leagle.com. Barbara Arbogast, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Layton, Ashcraft and Gerel LLP. Barbara Arbogast, Plaintiff, represented by John Eugene Herrick, Motley Rice LLC & John E. Guerry, III. Barbara Arbogast as Personal Representative for the Estate of Charles L. Arbogast, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by David M. Layton, Ashcraft and Gerel LLP. Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Defendant, represented by F. Ford Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC & Raymond P. Harris, Jr., Schachter Harris LLP. Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Defendant, represented by Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Robin Silver, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Cary I. Schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D. Cook, Wilcox and Savage, pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice. MCIC, Inc., Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr., Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC. Goodrich Corporation, Movant, represented by John C. Ruff, DeHay and Elliston LLP. Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Raymond P. Harris, Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D. Cook, Wilcox and Savage, pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice. MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr., Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP & M. Elizabeth O'Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young LLP, pro hac vice. Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Raymond P. Harris, Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D. Cook, Wilcox and Savage, pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice. MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr., Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP & M. Elizabeth O'Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young LLP, pro hac vice. Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by F. Ford Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris, Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D. Cook, Wilcox and Savage, pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice. MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr., Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable LLP & M. Elizabeth O'Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young LLP, pro hac vice. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Claimant, represented by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable LLP & M. Elizabeth O'Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young LLP, pro hac vice. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable LLP & M. Elizabeth O'Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young LLP, Pro hac vice. Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by F. Ford Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC. Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris, Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Robin Silver, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D. Cook, Wilcox and Savage, pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice. MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr., Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC. Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by F. Ford Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris, Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D. Cook, Wilcox and Savage, pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice. MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr., Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable LLP & M. Elizabeth O'Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young LLP, pro hac vice. Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by F. Ford Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris, Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D. Cook, Wilcox and Savage, pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice. MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr., Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable LLP & M. Elizabeth O'Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young LLP, pro hac vice. Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by F. Ford Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris, Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D. Cook, Wilcox and Savage, pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice. MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr., Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable LLP & M. Elizabeth O'Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young LLP, pro hac vice. Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Claimant, represented by F. Ford Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris, Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D. Cook, Wilcox and Savage, pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice. MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr., Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable LLP & M. Elizabeth O'Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young LLP, pro hac vice. Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by F. Ford Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris, Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D. Cook, Wilcox and Savage, pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice. MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr., Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable LLP & M. Elizabeth O'Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young LLP, pro hac vice. Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by F. Ford Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris, Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D. Cook, Wilcox and Savage, pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice. MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr., Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable LLP & M. Elizabeth O'Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young LLP, pro hac vice. Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by F. Ford Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris, Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D. Cook, Wilcox and Savage, pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice. MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr., Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable LLP & M. Elizabeth O'Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young LLP, pro hac vice. MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr., Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable LLP & M. Elizabeth O'Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young LLP, pro hac vice. Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by F. Ford Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris, Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D. Cook, Wilcox and Savage, pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice. MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr., Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable LLP & M. Elizabeth O'Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young LLP, pro hac vice. MCIC, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr., Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC. Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by F. Ford Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris, Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D. Cook, Wilcox and Savage, pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice. MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr., Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable LLP & M. Elizabeth O'Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young LLP, pro hac vice. Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by F. Ford Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris, Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D. Cook, Wilcox and Savage, pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice. MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr., Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable LLP & M. Elizabeth O'Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young LLP, pro hac vice. MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr., Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable LLP & M. Elizabeth O'Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young LLP, pro hac vice. MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr., Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable LLP & M. Elizabeth O'Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young LLP, pro hac vice. MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr., Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable LLP & M. Elizabeth O'Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young LLP, pro hac vice. Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by F. Ford Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris, Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D. Cook, Wilcox and Savage, pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice. MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr., Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable LLP & M. Elizabeth O'Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young LLP, pro hac vice. Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by F. Ford Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris, Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D. Cook, Wilcox and Savage, pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice. MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr., Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable LLP & M. Elizabeth O'Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young LLP, pro hac vice. Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by F. Ford Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris, Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Robin Silver, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D. Cook, Wilcox and Savage, pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice. Greene, Tweed & Co., Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Thomas Peter Bernier, Goldberg Segalla. MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr., Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable LLP & M. Elizabeth O'Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young LLP. Georgia-Pacific, LLC, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by F. Ford Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris, Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Robin Silver, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D. Cook, Wilcox and Savage, pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice. MCIC, Inc., ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr., Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC. Georgia-Pacific, LLC, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by F. Ford Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris, Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Robin Silver, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D. Cook, Wilcox and Savage, James E. Hooper, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, F. Ford Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris, Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Robin Silver, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D. Cook, Wilcox and Savage & James E. Hooper, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Bobo" Suit Remanded for Damages Recalculation --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit remanded the appeals case captioned BARBARA BOBO, et al., Plaintiffs, MELISSA ANN BOBO, co-personal representative of the Estate of Barbara Bobo, deceased, SHANNON JEAN COX, Plaintiffs- Appellees, v. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellant, No. 15-15271 (11th Cir.), to the district court with instructions for it to recalculate the damages award in order to exclude from it any amounts that were written off by Barbara Bobo's providers and to correct any other errors that may appear to the court when the parties have a chance to focus exclusively on the medical expenses component of the damages award. Mrs. Bobo's husband, James "Neal" Bobo, worked for the TVA for more than twenty-two years. While at TVA, he was diagnosed with asbestos-induced lung cancer and in 1997 died from a heart attack. Mrs. Bobo was diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma in 2011. She underwent thoracentesis, in which a long needle was used to remove two liters of fluid from the space between the lining of the outside of her lungs and the wall of her chest. She also underwent multiple rounds of chemotherapy, which she referred to as the "Red Devil," because of the side effects she experienced from it -- side effects which included, among other things, pain when drinking fluids and also spitting up raw flesh. In June 2012 her doctor performed a pleurectomy on Mrs. Bobo, removing one of her ribs and the pleural lining of one of her lungs. She died from mesothelioma in 2013. Before she died, she filed a lawsuit claiming that TVA's negligence resulted in her being exposed to "take-home" asbestos when she washed her husband's work clothes over the years. After a three-day bench trial, the district court entered judgment against TVA. The district court initially awarded the plaintiffs damages of $3,000,000 for pain and suffering, plus $547,008.93 in medical expenses, less an offset of $136,176.37, for a total amount of $3,410,832.56. The court later amended the judgment in light of post-trial settlements, which resulted in a final total damages award of $3,391,420.31. TVA appeals. The Eleventh Circuit held that TVA not only could foresee injuries from take-home asbestos exposure, it also created the risk of injuries to its employees' family members by using insulation products containing asbestos and failing to take the steps it was required to take in order to prevent its employees from carrying asbestos fibers off the premises and into their homes. The Eleventh Circuit further held, "Public policy concerns also weigh in favor of imposing a duty on TVA in these circumstances. TVA not only knew about the danger of take-home asbestos, it also knew about OSHA regulations that it was required to follow in order to limit exposure in the workplace and in the homes of its employees. And it knew of its own internal requirements that, if followed, would have limited exposure and prevented it from being carried home on its employees' clothes. TVA was in the best position to protect people like Mrs. Bobo from take-home asbestos exposure by complying with the relevant regulations or internal policies that were designed for that purpose, but it failed to do so. Recognizing TVA's duty in these circumstances is fully warranted by considerations of public policy." A full-text copy of the Opinion dated April 26, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/dgO60n from Leagle.com. Anne Laurie McClurkin, for Plaintiff-Appellee. James A. Harris, Jr., for Plaintiff-Appellee. Evelyn Fletcher Davis, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Nicole Mapp Hardee, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Michael A. Vercher, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Rebekah Keith McKinney, for Plaintiff-Appellee. W. Larkin Radney, IV, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Lisa White Shirley, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Clifton Wayne Jefferis, for Defendant-Appellant. Walter Thompson Gilmer, Jr., for Defendant-Appellant. Edward C. Meade, for Defendant-Appellant. Edwin Warren Small, for Defendant-Appellant. James S. Chase, for Defendant-Appellant. Charles E. Soechting, Jr., for Plaintiff-Appellee. Christopher J. Panatier, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Jay E. Stuemke, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Rachel Perkins, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Stacey Leigh Strain, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Misty A. Farris, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Jeffrey B. Simon, for Plaintiff-Appellee. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Destructive Testing OK'd in Mesothelioma Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Erin Wilder-Doomes of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana granted the Motion for Destructive Testing filed by defendant Pilkington North America, Inc. (f/k/a Libbey Owens Ford) in the case captioned WILLIAM D. COLEMAN, v. ANCO INSULATIONS, INC. ET AL., Civil Action No. 15- 821-BAJ-EWD (M.D. La.). Plaintiffs allege that William D. Coleman died from malignant mesothelioma on November 8, 2016 "due to or a [sic] consequence of his exposure to dust and fibers from asbestos and asbestos- containing materials utilized by" PNA. On March 17, 2017, PNA filed the instant Motion for Destructive Testing, seeking an order allowing it to proceed with destructive testing of Decedent's pathology materials. Specifically, PNA seeks "to use a small portion of Decedent's tissue" for a "fiber burden analysis" that PNA contends will provide objective evidence "of whether or not there are asbestos fibers in decedent's pathological tissue." PNA explains that "[i]f the tissue is large enough and well preserved, it can be 'digested' in a manner that eliminates the tissue and leaves behind any inorganic particles and minerals. By using this methodology, a person can identify objective evidence of exposure to biopersistent materials like asbestos." PNA therefore seeks an order from the court granting the Motion for Destructive Testing. Although Plaintiffs indicated opposition to the Motion for Destructive Testing during an in-court conference with the parties on March 29, 2017, Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition to the Motion. Accordingly, the court considers the Motion for Destructive Testing to be unopposed. As proposed by PNA, the destructive testing will use no more than 50% of Decedent's pathology materials and PNA will provide the results of said testing to Plaintiffs. No party has asserted that PNA's proposed testing would hinder their ability to present evidence at trial, nor has any party suggested less prejudicial alternatives, Magistrate Wilder-Doomes pointed out. Further, the magistrate found that PNA has established the relevancy of the proposed fiber burden analysis. Especially in light of the fact that PNA's proposal will not destroy all of the pathology materials and PNA's expert will provide the results of the analysis to Plaintiffs, the magistrate found that the testing should proceed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. Accordingly, Magistrate Wilder-Doomes ordered that the pathology materials of William Coleman, XXX-XX-8396, including slides, tissues, stains and blocks, and associated reports of William Coleman, XXX-XX-8396 (including but not limited to: accession/specimen ##: S15-32945, OC-15-12125, C-15-214324, C-15- 214326, S-15-053034, S-15-091159), be released to PNA's expert for destructive testing described as a "fiber burden analysis" and "tissue digestion." It is further ordered that PNA's expert will use no more than 50% of the Pathology Materials and that PNA will provide the results of PNA's expert's destructive analysis to Plaintiffs no later than ninety (90) days from the date of service of said materials to PNA. A full-text copy of the Ruling and Order dated April 25, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/bncMoU from Leagle.com. Pamela Coleman, Plaintiff, represented by: Susannah B. Chester-Schindler, Esq. WATERS & KRAUS, LLP 3141 Hood Street, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75219 Tel: 214.357.6244 Fax: 214.357.7252 Jody Coleman Nolte, Plaintiff, represented by Susannah B. Chester- Schindler, Waters & Kraus, LLP. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Susan M. Rogge, Esq. -- srogge@barrassousdin.com -- Barrasso Usdin Kupperman Freeman & Sarver LLC, H. Minor Pipes, III, Esq. -- mpipes@barrassousdin.com -- Barrasso Usdin Kupperman Freeman & Sarver LLC & Kimberly R. Silas, Esq. -- ksilas@barrassousdin.com - - Barrasso Usdin Kupperman Freeman & Sarver, L.L.C.. Safety National Casualty Corporation, Defendant, represented by Chris James LeBlanc, Esq. -- cleblanc@wbwplaw.com -- Watson, Blanche, Wilson & Posner, LLP & William Eugene Scott, III, Esq. -- wscott@wbwplaw.com -- Watson, Blanche, Wilson & Posner, LLP. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Defendant, represented by Kristopher T. Wilson, Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard & Katherine L. Osborne, Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard. Pilkington North America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew Culp, Esq. -- mculp@rdm.law -- Rasmussen Willis Dickey Moore, pro hac vice, Matthew S. Jensen, Esq. -- mjensen@rdm.law -- Rasmussen Willis Dickey & Moore, LLC, pro hac vice, and Jane H. Barney, Esq. J.H. BARNEY LAW FIRM, LLC 2561 Citi Place Court Suite 750-161 Baton Rouge, LA 70808 Phone: 225-235-9016 Bedivere Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Samuel M. Rosamond, III, Esq. -- srosamond@twpdlaw.com -- Taylor Wellons Politz & Duhe, APLC, Adam D. deMahy & Angela Jacketti O'Brien, Louisiana Department of Justice - Office of Attorney General. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Verdict vs. Millar Companies Affirmed ----------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Dominick and Lorraine J. Dominick, Plaintiffs, commenced an action seeking damages for injuries sustained by Nicholas from his exposure to asbestos. Lorraine abandoned her loss of consortium claim at the ensuing trial. Defendants Charles Millar & Son Co., et al., appeal from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding that the plaintiff was exposed to asbestos from products supplied by the Millar defendants, that they failed to exercise reasonable care by not providing a warning about the hazards of exposure to asbestos with respect to their products, and that their failure to warn was a substantial contributing factor in causing plaintiff's injuries. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department, held that contrary to the contention of the Millar defendants, the evidence is sufficient to establish that asbestos in products they supplied was a substantial factor in causing or contributing to plaintiff's injuries. The Appellate Division held that there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences that could lead rational persons to the conclusion reached by the jury based upon the evidence presented at trial. The Appellate Division pointed out that the Plaintiff testified that he was exposed to asbestos dust from asbestos boards and cement supplied by the Millar defendants that were used in the heat treat area of a pneumatic-tool making plant. The hypothetical question that plaintiff asked his expert was based on plaintiff's testimony or was otherwise "fairly inferable from the evidence." The Appellate Division pointed out that with respect to specific causation, the Court of Appeals held in Parker v Mobil Oil Corp. (7 N.Y.3d 434, 448, rearg denied 8 N.Y.3d 828) that the expert opinion must set forth that the plaintiff "was exposed to sufficient levels of the toxin to cause the [injuries]." However, as the Court of Appeals later wrote, "Parker explains that precise quantification' or a dose-response relationship' or an exact numerical value' is not required to make a showing of specific causation." There simply "must be evidence from which the factfinder can conclude that the plaintiff was exposed to levels of [the] agent that are known to cause the kind of harm that the plaintiff claims to have suffered.'" Here, plaintiff's expert opined that, if a worker sees asbestos dust, that is a "massive exposure . . . capable of causing disease." Contrary to the Millar defendants' contention, the expert's opinion, considered along with the rest of her testimony, was sufficient to establish specific causation, the Appellate Division held. The Appellate Division rejected the Millar defendants' contention that Supreme Court abused its discretion in precluding them from calling certain witnesses. Plaintiff moved in limine to preclude the testimony of eight of plaintiff's former coworkers on the ground that the Millar defendants' disclosure of those witnesses was untimely. The court exercised its sound discretion in limiting the Millar defendants to calling just two of the witnesses inasmuch as the testimony of the remaining coworkers would be cumulative. The court also properly denied the motion of the Millar defendants for leave to renew or reargue their opposition to the motion in limine inasmuch as they again failed to show that the testimony of the remaining coworkers would not be cumulative. The Appellate Division also rejected the Millar defendants' contention that the jury's apportionment of fault is against the weight of the evidence. Indeed, they "did not meet [their] burden of establishing the equitable shares of fault attributable to other tortfeasors in order to reduce [their] own liability for damages" (see Matter of New York Asbestos Litig., 28 A.D.3d 255, 256). Finally, the Appellate Division rejected the Millar defendants' contention that the award of $3 million for future pain and suffering for one year deviates materially from what is reasonable compensation. Accordingly, the Appellate Division ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs. A full-text copy of the Opinion dated April 28, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/fQTk2Z from Leagle.com. BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP, ALBANY (GEORGE F. CARPINELLO, Esq. -- gcarpinello@bsfllp.com -- OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS- APPELLANTS. BELLUCK & FOX, LLP, NEW YORK CITY (SETH A. DYMOND, Esq. -- OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver Had US$108.5MM Reserve at Feb. 28 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gardner Denver Holdings, Inc., had US$108.5 million reserve at December 31, 2016, for potential liability arising from its asbestos-related litigation, according to the Company's Form S-1 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017. The Company states, "We have been named as a defendant in many asbestos-related and silica-related personal injury lawsuits. The plaintiffs in these suits allege exposure to asbestos or silica from multiple sources and typically we are one of approximately 25 or more named defendants. Our predecessors sometimes manufactured, distributed and/or sold products allegedly at issue in these pending asbestos and silica-related lawsuits (the "Products"). However, neither we nor our predecessors ever mined, manufactured, mixed, produced or distributed asbestos fiber or silica sand, the materials that allegedly caused the injury underlying the lawsuits. Moreover, the asbestos-containing components of the Products, if any, were enclosed within the subject Products. "Although we have never mined, manufactured, mixed, produced or distributed asbestos fiber or silica, many of the companies that did engage in such activities or produced such products are no longer in operation. This has led to law firms seeking potential alternative companies to name in lawsuits where there has been an asbestos or silica related injury. However, in our opinion, based on our experience to date, the substantial majority of the plaintiffs have not suffered an injury for which we bear responsibility. "We believe that the pending and future asbestos and silica- related lawsuits are not likely to, in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity, based on: our anticipated insurance and indemnification rights to address the risks of such matters; the limited potential asbestos exposure from the Products; our opinion, based on our experience to date, that the vast majority of plaintiffs are not impaired with a disease attributable to alleged exposure to asbestos or silica from or relating to the Products or for which we otherwise bear responsibility; various potential defenses available to us with respect to such matters; and our prior disposition of comparable matters. "However, inherent uncertainties of litigation and future developments, including, without limitation, potential insolvencies of insurance companies or other defendants, an adverse determination in the Adams County Case, or other inability to collect from our historical insurers or indemnitors, could cause a different outcome. While the outcome of legal proceedings is inherently uncertain, based on presently known facts, experience and circumstances, we believe that the amounts accrued on the Company's balance sheet are adequate and that the liabilities arising from the asbestos and silica-related personal injury lawsuits will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity. "We have accrued liabilities and other liabilities on our consolidated balance sheet to include a total litigation reserve of US$108.5 million and US$94.1 million as of December 31, 2016 and 2015 respectively, with respect to potential liability arising from our asbestos-related litigation (with the increase in reserve resulting from a change in certain actuarial assumptions used in our projection of potential liability, without which we believe the reserve as of December 31, 2016 would have been less than the December 31, 2015 reserve of US$94.1 million). "Asbestos-related defense costs are excluded from the asbestos claims liability and are recorded separately as an operating expense as services are incurred. We currently expect to continue to incur significant asbestos-related defense costs. In the event of unexpected future developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of these matters may be material to the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operation or liquidity, and defense costs may be material. However, at this time, based on presently available information, we view this possibility as remote. "We have entered into a series of agreements with certain of the Company's or the Company's predecessors' legacy insurers and certain potential indemnitors to secure insurance coverage and/or reimbursement for the costs associated with the asbestos and silica-related lawsuits filed against us. We have also pursued litigation against certain insurers or indemnitors where necessary. We have an insurance recovery receivable for probable asbestos related recoveries of approximately US$97.3 million, which is included on our consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2016. "The largest such recent action, Gardner Denver, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, et al., was filed on July 9, 2010, in the Eighth Judicial Circuit, Adams County, Illinois, as case number 10-L-48 (the "Adams County Case"). In the lawsuit, we seek, among other things, to require certain excess insurer defendants to honor their insurance policy obligations to us, including payment in whole or in part of the costs associated with the asbestos-related lawsuits filed against us. "In October 2011, we reached a settlement with one of the insurer defendants, which had issued both primary and excess policies, for approximately the amount of defendant's policies which were subject to the lawsuit. Since then, the case has been proceeding through the discovery and motions process with the remaining insurer defendants. "On January 29, 2016, we prevailed on the first phase of that discovery and motions process ("Phase I"). Specifically, the Court in the Adams County Case ruled that we have rights under all of the policies in the case, subject to their terms and conditions, even though the policies were sold to our former owners rather than to the Company itself. "On June 9, 2016, the Court denied a motion by several of the insurers who sought permission to appeal the Phase I ruling now rather than waiting until the end of the whole case as is normally required. The case has now begun proceeding through the discovery and motions process regarding the remaining issues in dispute. "A majority of our expected future recoveries of the costs associated with the asbestos-related lawsuits are the subject of the Adams County Case. "The amounts we recorded for asbestos-related liabilities and insurance recoveries are based on currently available information and assumptions that we believe are reasonable based on our evaluation of relevant factors with input from a third party actuarial expert. Our actual liabilities or insurance recoveries could be higher or lower than those recorded if actual results vary significantly from the assumptions. "There are a number of key variables and assumptions including the number and type of new claims to be filed each year, the resolution or outcome of these claims, the average cost of resolution of each new claim, the amount of insurance available, allocation methodologies, the contractual terms with each insurer with whom we have reached settlements, the resolution of coverage issues with other excess insurance carriers with whom we have not yet achieved settlements and the solvency risk with respect to our insurance carriers. "Other factors that may affect our future liability include uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, legal rulings that may be made by state and federal courts and the passage of state or federal legislation. We make the necessary adjustments for our asbestos liability and corresponding insurance recoveries on an annual basis unless facts or circumstances warrant assessment as of an interim date." A full-text copy of the Form S-1 is available at https://is.gd/WDyGpd ASBESTOS ALERT: Arconic, Units Face PI Suits at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------- Arconic Inc. and its subsidiaries are defendant in asbestos- related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company states, "Arconic Inc. and its subsidiaries and former subsidiaries are defendants in lawsuits filed on behalf of persons alleging injury as a result of occupational or other exposure to asbestos. Arconic, its subsidiaries and former subsidiaries have numerous insurance policies over many years that provide coverage for asbestos related claims. Arconic has significant insurance coverage and believes that Arconic's reserves are adequate for its known asbestos exposure related liabilities. The costs of defense and settlement have not been and are not expected to be material to the results of operations, cash flows, and financial position of the Company." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/mhyLgG ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint, Units Still Face Suits at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC, and its subsidiaries continue to face asbestos-related claims and lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company states, "Some facilities owned by Houston Electric contain or have contained asbestos insulation and other asbestos- containing materials. CenterPoint Energy and its subsidiaries, including Houston Electric, are from time to time named, along with numerous others, as defendants in lawsuits filed by a number of individuals who claim injury due to exposure to asbestos, and CenterPoint Energy anticipates that additional claims may be asserted in the future. Although their ultimate outcome cannot be predicted at this time, Houston Electric does not expect these matters, either individually or in the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/uk89Td ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Records US$696MM Liability at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co. recorded an estimated aggregate asbestos liability of US$696 million at December 31, 2016, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company also had an aggregate asbestos insurance receivable of US$143 million at December 31, 2016. The Company states, "We have retained the firm of Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Associates, Inc. ("HR&A"), a nationally recognized expert in the field, to assist management in estimating our asbestos liability in the tort system. HR&A reviews information provided by us concerning claims filed, settled and dismissed, amounts paid in settlements and relevant claim information such as the nature of the asbestos-related disease asserted by the claimant, the jurisdiction where filed and the time lag from filing to disposition of the claim. "The methodology used by HR&A to project future asbestos costs is based on our recent historical experience for claims filed, settled and dismissed during a base reference period. Our experience is then compared to estimates of the number of individuals likely to develop asbestos-related diseases determined based on widely used previously conducted epidemiological studies augmented with current data inputs. "Those studies were undertaken in connection with national analyses of the population of workers believed to have been exposed to asbestos. Using that information, HR&A estimates the number of future claims that would be filed against us and estimates the aggregate settlement or indemnity costs that would be incurred to resolve both pending and future claims based upon the average settlement costs by disease during the reference period. "Our liability estimate is augmented for the costs of defending asbestos claims in the tort system using a forecast from us which is based upon discussions with its defense counsel. Based on this information, HR&A compiles an estimate of our asbestos liability for pending and future claims using a range of reference periods based on claim experience and covering claims expected to be filed through the indicated forecast period. "The most significant factors affecting the liability estimate are (1) the number of new mesothelioma claims filed against us, (2) the average settlement costs for mesothelioma claims, (3) the percentage of mesothelioma claims dismissed against us and (4) the aggregate defense costs incurred by us. These factors are interdependent, and no one factor predominates in determining the liability estimate. These trend factors have both positive and negative effects on the dynamics of asbestos litigation in the tort system and the related best estimate of our asbestos liability, and these effects do not move in a linear fashion but rather change over multi-year periods. "In our view, the forecast period used to provide the best estimate for asbestos claims and related liabilities and costs is a judgment based upon a number of trend factors, including the number and type of claims being filed each year; the jurisdictions where such claims are filed, and the effect of any legislation or judicial orders in such jurisdictions restricting the types of claims that can proceed to trial on the merits; and the likelihood of any comprehensive asbestos legislation at the federal level. Accordingly, we continue to monitor these trend factors over time and periodically assesses whether an alternative forecast period is appropriate. "With the assistance of HR&A, effective as of December 31, 2016, we extended our estimate of the asbestos liability, including the costs of settlement or indemnity payments and defense costs relating to currently pending claims and future claims projected to be filed against us through the generally accepted end point of such claims in 2059. Our previous estimate was for asbestos claims filed or projected to be filed through 2021. Our estimate of the asbestos liability for pending and future claims through 2059 is based on the projected future asbestos costs resulting from our experience using a range of reference periods for claims filed, settled and dismissed. "Based on this estimate, we recorded an additional liability of US$227 million (an aggregate asbestos liability of US$696 million) as of December 31, 2016. Estimation of our exposure for asbestos- related claims is subject to significant uncertainties, as there are multiple variables that can affect the timing, severity and quantity of claims and the manner of their resolution. "In conjunction with developing the aggregate liability estimate, we also developed an estimate of probable insurance recoveries for our asbestos liabilities. As of December 31, 2016, we had an aggregate asbestos insurance receivable of US$143 million. In developing this estimate, we considered our coverage-in-place and other settlement agreements, as well as a number of additional factors. "These additional factors include the financial viability of the insurance companies, the method by which losses will be allocated to the various insurance policies and the years covered by those policies, how settlement and defense costs will be covered by the insurance policies and interpretation of the effect on coverage of various policy terms and limits and their interrelationships." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/P5sXEL ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Still Faces 36,052 Claims at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co. continues to defend itself against 36,052 claims related to asbestos exposure, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company states, "As of December 31, 2016, we were one of a number of defendants in cases involving 36,052 pending claims filed in various state and federal courts that allege injury or death as a result of exposure to asbestos. "Of the 36,052 pending claims as of December 31, 2016, approximately 18,300 claims were pending in New York, approximately 1,000 claims were pending in Texas, approximately 4,800 claims were pending in Mississippi, and approximately 200 claims were pending in Ohio, all jurisdictions in which legislation or judicial orders restrict the types of claims that can proceed to trial on the merits. "The Company has tried several cases resulting in defense verdicts by the jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the court. The Company further has pursued appeals of certain adverse jury verdicts that have resulted in reversals in favor of the defense. "In the fourth quarter of 2016, we updated and extended the estimate of our asbestos liability and recorded a pre-tax charge of US$192 million (US$125 million after tax). Our updated liability estimate is for pending and reasonably anticipated asbestos claims through the generally accepted end point of such claims in 2059. Due to uncertainties in the tort system, as well as uncertainties inherent in the estimation process, future reviews may result in adjustments to our total asbestos-related liability. The liability was US$696 million as of December 31, 2016." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/P5sXEL ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco Plc, Units Still Defend Suits at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Ensco plc and its subsidiaries continue to defend themselves against lawsuits associated with asbestos exposure, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company states, "We and certain subsidiaries are currently named as defendants, along with numerous third-party companies as co-defendants, in multi-party lawsuits filed in Mississippi and Louisiana by approximately 32 plaintiffs. The lawsuits seek an unspecified amount of monetary damages on behalf of individuals alleging personal injury or death, primarily under the Jones Act, purportedly resulting from exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities during the 1960s through the 1980s. "During 2013, we reached an agreement in principle with 58 plaintiffs to settle lawsuits filed in Mississippi for a nominal amount. The settlement documents for these lawsuits have been processed, and the cases have been dismissed. "We intend to vigorously defend against the remaining lawsuits and have filed responsive pleadings preserving all defenses and challenges to jurisdiction and venue. We expect final disposition of these lawsuits to be immaterial to our financial position, operating results and cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/DY3nza ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar Still Faces Asbestos Claims at Jan. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Navistar International Corporation continues to defend itself, among other defendants, against asbestos claims related to its facilities and older vehicle models, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2017. The Company states, "Along with other vehicle manufacturers, we have been subject to an increased number of asbestos-related claims in recent years. In general, these claims relate to illnesses alleged to have resulted from asbestos exposure from component parts found in older vehicles, although some cases relate to the alleged presence of asbestos in our facilities. In these claims, we are generally not the sole defendant, and the claims name as defendants numerous manufacturers and suppliers of a wide variety of products allegedly containing asbestos. "We have strongly disputed these claims, and it has been our policy to defend against them vigorously. Historically, the actual damages paid out to claimants have not been material in any year to our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. It is possible that the number of these claims will continue to grow, and that the costs for resolving asbestos related claims could become significant in the future." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/QKDOn3 ASBESTOS ALERT: DOJ, EPA Probe Metaldyne Unit's WI Facility ----------------------------------------------------------- A Metaldyne Performance Group Inc. unit is under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Environmental Protection Agency regarding its Wisconsin facility, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. Metaldyne states, "The Company's subsidiary, Grede Wisconsin Subsidiaries LLC ("Grede Wisconsin"), is currently under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Environmental Protection Agency for alleged Clean Air Act violations and alleged obstruction of justice relating to the January 2012 removal of debris from the roof of a heat treat oven that was purported to contain asbestos at Grede Wisconsin's now closed facility in Berlin, Wisconsin. "The United States Attorney, Eastern District of Wisconsin, indicated to our attorneys handling this matter that the government intends to imminently seek an indictment relating to this matter. If an indictment is brought, the Company intends to defend against this matter." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/0uB5Vn ASBESTOS UPDATE: EMC Ups A&E IBNR Reserves by US$3.5MM in 2016 -------------------------------------------------------------- EMC Insurance Group Inc. increased asbestos and environmental Incurred But Not Reported (IBNR) loss and settlement expense reserves by US$3.5 million in 2016, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The increase was primarily reflected in the other liability line of business, according to the Company. The Company states, "The increase was in response to an indicated increase in the ultimate asbestos liability produced by internal payout decay models. Management also notes that A.M. Best increased the industry's estimated ultimate liability by US$15 billion during 2016. Newly reported asbestos claims have decreased slightly for the last two calendar years. Asbestos and environmental reserves constitute less than 3 percent of the property and casualty insurance segment's total direct reserves. "The Company has exposure to asbestos and environmental-related claims associated with the insurance business written by the parties to the pooling agreement and the reinsurance business assumed from Employers Mutual by the reinsurance subsidiary. With regard to the assumed reinsurance business, however, all asbestos and environmental exposures related to 1980 and prior accident years are retained by Employers Mutual. "Estimating loss and settlement expense reserves for asbestos and environmental claims is very difficult due to the many uncertainties surrounding these types of claims. These uncertainties exist because the assignment of responsibility varies widely by state and claims often emerge long after a policy has expired, which makes assignment of damages to the appropriate party and to the time period covered by a particular policy difficult. In establishing reserves for these types of claims, management monitors the relevant facts concerning each claim, the current status of the legal environment, social and political conditions, and the claim history and trends within the Company and the industry. "The property and casualty insurance subsidiaries have exposure to asbestos and environmental claims arising primarily from the other liability line of business. These exposures are closely monitored by management, and IBNR loss reserves have been established to cover estimated ultimate losses. The loss and settlement expense reserves associated with asbestos claims have been increased each year for the last several years due to continued reporting of new claims at a rate not previously anticipated, as well as updated internal ultimate loss and settlement expense evaluations. In 2016, the loss and settlement expense reserves for asbestos claims were strengthened approximately US$3.5 million. "Toxic tort claims include those where the claimant seeks compensation for harm allegedly caused by exposure to a toxic substance or a substance that increases the risk of contracting a serious disease, such as cancer. Typically the injury is caused by latent effects of direct or indirect exposure to a substance or combination of substances through absorption, contact, ingestion, inhalation, implantation or injection. Examples of toxic tort claims include injuries arising out of exposure to asbestos, silica, mold, drugs, carbon monoxide, chemicals and lead. "Since 1989, the pool participants have included an asbestos exclusion in liability policies issued for most lines of business. The exclusion prohibits liability coverage for "bodily injury", "personal injury" or "property damage" (including any associated clean-up obligations) arising out of the installation, existence, removal or disposal of asbestos or any substance containing asbestos fibers. Therefore, the pool participants' current asbestos exposures are primarily limited to commercial policies issued prior to 1989. At present, the pool participants are defending approximately 1,856 asbestos bodily injury lawsuits, some of which involve multiple plaintiffs. Claims activity associated with eight policyholders dominates the pool participants' asbestos claims, representing an aggregate 1,812 lawsuits with 2,074 claimants. Most of the lawsuits are subject to express reservation of rights based upon the lack of an injury within the applicable policy periods, because many asbestos lawsuits do not specifically allege dates of asbestos exposure or dates of injury. The pool participants' policyholders named as defendants in these asbestos lawsuits are typically peripheral defendants who have little or no exposure and are often dismissed from asbestos litigation with nominal or no payment (i.e., small contractors, supply companies, and a furnace manufacturer). "Prior to 2008, actual losses paid for asbestos-related claims had been minimal due to the plaintiffs' failure to identify an exposure to any asbestos-containing products associated with the pool participants' current and former policyholders. However, paid losses and settlement expenses have increased significantly since 2008 as a result of claims attributed to one former policyholder. During the period 2009 through 2016, the Company's share of paid losses and settlement expenses attributed to this former policyholder, a furnace manufacturer, was US$11.2 million (mostly settlement expenses). The asbestos exposure associated with this former policyholder has increased in recent years, and this trend may possibly continue into the future with increased per plaintiff settlements. Settlement expense payments associated with this former policyholder have increased significantly since 2008 and have been a driver behind recently implemented reserve increases. The primary cause of this increase in paid settlement expenses is the retention of a national coordinating counsel in 2008 due to this former policyholder's exposure in numerous jurisdictions. The national coordinating counsel has provided, and continues to provide, significant services in the areas of document review, discovery, deposition and trial preparation. Approximately 728 asbestos exposure claims associated with this former policyholder remain open. Whenever possible, the pool participants have participated in cost sharing agreements with other insurance companies to reduce overall expenses. "The Company's exposure to asbestos and environmental claims through assumed reinsurance is very limited due to the fact that the Company's reinsurance subsidiary entered into the reinsurance marketplace in the early 1980's, after much attention had already been brought to these issues. "At December 31, 2016, the Company carried asbestos and environmental reserves for direct insurance and assumed reinsurance business totaling US$13.3 million, which represents 1.9 percent of total loss and settlement expense reserves. The asbestos and environmental reserves include US$5.4 million of case loss reserves, US$4.8 million of IBNR loss reserves and US$3.1 million of bulk settlement expense reserves. Ceded reinsurance on these reserves totaled US$335,000. Loss and settlement expense reserves were increased in 2016 because of deterioration in the implied survival ratio." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at http://bit.ly/2q9ai36 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gorman-Rupp Still Defends Suits at Dec. 31 ----------------------------------------------------------- The Gorman-Rupp Company and a subsidiary continue to face asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company states, "For more than fifteen years, numerous business entities in the pump and fluid-handling industries, as well as a multitude of companies in many other industries, have been targeted in a series of lawsuits in several jurisdictions by various individuals seeking redress to claimed injury as a result of the entities' alleged use of asbestos in their products. "Since 2001, the Company and one of its subsidiaries, Patterson Pump Company, have been involved in this mass-scaled litigation, typically as one of many co-defendants in a particular proceeding. The allegations in the lawsuits involving the Company and/or Patterson Pump Company have been vague, general and speculative. Most of these lawsuits have been dismissed without advancing beyond the early stage of discovery, some as a result of nominal monetary settlements recommended for payment by the Company's insurers. "The claims and related legal expenses generally have been covered by the Company's insurance, subject to applicable deductibles and limitations. Accordingly, this series of lawsuits has not, cumulatively or individually, had a material adverse impact on the Company's consolidated results of operations, liquidity or financial condition, nor is it expected to have any such impact in the future, based on the current knowledge of the Company." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at http://bit.ly/2qhrvqj ASBESTOS UPDATE: Joy Global Faces 3,711 Asbestos, Silica Cases -------------------------------------------------------------- Joy Global Inc. faces 3,711 asbestos- and silica-related product liability cases, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended January 27, 2017. The Company said, "We and our subsidiaries are involved in various unresolved legal matters that arise in the normal course of operations, the most prevalent of which relate to product liability (including 3,711 asbestos and silica-related cases), employment and commercial matters. We and our subsidiaries also become involved from time to time in proceedings relating to environmental matters and litigation arising outside the ordinary course of business." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at http://bit.ly/2q9hBb7 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hexion Inc. Still Defends in Suits at Dec. 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- Hexion Inc. remains a defendant in various lawsuits including proceedings related to asbestos products, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. Hexion states, "The Company is involved in various other product liability, commercial and employment litigation, personal injury, property damage and other legal proceedings, including actions that allege harm caused by products the Company has allegedly made or used, containing silica, vinyl chloride monomer and asbestos. The Company believes it has adequate reserves and that it is not reasonably possible that a loss exceeding amounts already reserved would be material. Furthermore, the Company has insurance to cover claims of these types." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at http://bit.ly/2qib4dd ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toro Company Still Defends Suits at Feb. 3 ----------------------------------------------------------- The Toro Company continues to defend itself against asbestos- related legal proceedings, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended February 3, 2017. The Company states, "We are a party to litigation in the ordinary course of business. Litigation occasionally involves claims for punitive, as well as compensatory, damages arising out of the use of our products. Although we are self-insured to some extent, we maintain insurance against certain product liability losses. "We are also subject to litigation and administrative and judicial proceedings with respect to claims involving asbestos and the discharge of hazardous substances into the environment. Some of these claims assert damages and liability for personal injury, remedial investigations or clean-up, and other costs and damages." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at http://bit.ly/2oM6anE ASBESTOS ALERT: Northwest Pipe Accrues $0.2MM for Plant VCP ----------------------------------------------------------- Northwest Pipe Company has an accrual of at least US$0.2 million for future remediation costs related to environmental issues of its Houston, Texas plant, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. Northwest Pipe states, "In connection with the Company's sale of its OCTG business, a Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment was conducted at the Houston, Texas plant and completed in March 2014, which revealed the presence of VOCs in the groundwater and certain metals in the soil. "In June 2014, the Company was accepted into the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality ("TCEQ") Voluntary Cleanup Program ("VCP") to address these issues and obtain a Certificate of Completion ("COC") from TCEQ. The cost of any potential assessment and cleanup will not be covered by insurance. However, any costs incurred will be reimbursed by the purchaser of the OCTG business if the purchaser exercises its option to purchase the property under certain circumstances after the COC is obtained. "The proposed remediation approach includes a municipal setting designation ordinance, approved by the City of Houston City Council in January 2017, to prevent consumption of shallow groundwater from beneath the property, thereby eliminating the need for more costly remediation measures. "In October 2016, the TCEQ notified the Company that a neighboring facility has asbestos contamination in its soil. In a December 2016 meeting with TCEQ, the Company was notified that it will need to assess asbestos contamination before the TCEQ will proceed with a COC. "The Company expects to provide a sampling work plan in first quarter of 2017 and collect samples soon after the work plan is approved. The Company currently estimates that the future costs associated with the VCP will be between US$0.1 million and US$1.7 million. "As of December 31, 2016, the Company has a US$0.2 million accrual for remediation costs based on the low-end estimate of future costs using a probability-weighted analysis of remediation approaches, and estimates that completion of the VCP process will occur between the third quarter of 2017 and the third quarter of 2019." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at http://bit.ly/2qi9vvU ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Units Face 58 PI Suits at Jan. 31 ------------------------------------------------------ GMS Inc.'s subsidiaries are still defending themselves against 58 pending asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits at January 31, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2017. The Company states, "The building materials industry has been subject to personal injury and property damage claims arising from alleged exposure to raw materials contained in building products as well as claims for incidents of catastrophic loss, such as building fires. As a distributor of building materials, we face an inherent risk of exposure to product liability claims in the event that the use of the products we have distributed in the past or may in the future distribute is alleged to have resulted in economic loss, personal injury or property damage or violated environmental, health or safety or other laws. "Such product liability claims have included and may in the future include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability or a breach of warranties. In particular, certain of our subsidiaries have been the subject of claims related to alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products they distributed prior to 1979. "Since 2002 and as of January 31, 2017, approximately 977 asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits have been brought and we vigorously defend against them. Of these, 884 have been dismissed without any payment by us, 29 are on deferred or inactive court dockets, 58 are pending and only 6 have been settled, which settlements have not materially impacted our financial condition or operating results." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at http://bit.ly/2qbmpQ9 ASBESTOS UPDATE: MYR Group Still Defends Suits at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------- Claims against MYR Group Inc., including asbestos-related ones concerning a divested subsidiary of its predecessor, have not had a material impact to the Company as of March 9, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company states, "We are routinely subject to other civil claims, litigation and arbitration, and regulatory investigations arising in the ordinary course of our past and present businesses as well as in respect of our divested businesses. Some of these include claims related to our services and operations, and asbestos-related claims concerning operations of a divested subsidiary of our predecessor. "We believe that we have strong defenses to these claims as well as insurance coverage that will contribute to any settlement or liability in the event any asbestos-related claim is not resolved in our favor. "These claims have not had a material impact on us to date, and we believe the likelihood that a future material adverse outcome will result from these claims is remote. However, if facts and circumstances change in the future, we cannot be certain that an adverse outcome of one or more of these claims would not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at http://bit.ly/2qbdRIS ASBESTOS UPDATE: OSG Still Faces Asbestos Suits at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------- Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc. ("OSG") remains a party to a variety of lawsuits including proceedings related to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. Overseas Shipholding states, "The Company is a party, as plaintiff or defendant, to various suits in the ordinary course of business for monetary relief arising principally from personal injuries (including without limitation exposure to asbestos and other toxic materials), wrongful death, collision or other casualty and to claims arising under charter parties. A substantial majority of such personal injury, wrongful death, collision or other casualty claims against the Company are covered by insurance (subject to deductibles not material in amount). Each of the claims involves an amount which, in the opinion of management, are not expected to be material to the Company's financial position, results of operations and cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at http://bit.ly/2oPdyQ2 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Faces 103 PI Cases at Dec. 31 -------------------------------------------------------- Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. continues to defend itself against 103 cases alleging personal injury due to asbestos exposure, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company states, "We were a co-defendant in approximately 103 cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 199 plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability, and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages. "In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from US$25,000 to US$75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages sought. To the extent that any specific amount of damages is sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants. "There are six asbestos cases, involving 24 plaintiffs, that plead specified damages against named defendants. In each of the six cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of action. In three cases, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of US$3.0 million and US$10.0 million, respectively, for four separate causes of action, US$1.0 million for a fifth cause of action and US$3 million for a sixth cause of action. In the fourth and fifth cases, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of US$20.0 million, for three and six separate causes of action, respectively and US$5.0 million compensatory for the fifth and seventh cause of actions, respectively. In the sixth case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of US$10.0 million for five counts, and US$5.0 million for a sixth cause of action. "Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos- containing product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries. We intend to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe we will continue to be successful in being dismissed from such cases. However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation. Despite this uncertainty, and although our results of operations and cash flows for a particular period could be adversely affected by asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, liquidity or results of operations. "Among the factors management considered in reaching this conclusion were: (a) our historical success in being dismissed from these types of lawsuits; (b) many cases have been improperly filed against one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the plaintiffs have been unable to establish any causal relationship to us or our products or premises; (d) in many cases, the plaintiffs have been unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable injury or compensable loss at all or that any injuries that they have incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to asbestos; and (e) the complaints assert claims against multiple defendants and, in most cases, the damages alleged are not attributed to individual defendants. Additionally, we do not believe that the amounts claimed in any of the asbestos cases are meaningful indicators of our potential exposure because the amounts claimed typically bear no relation to the extent of the plaintiff's injury, if any. "Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to date and, based upon available information, our management does not expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity or financial position." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at http://bit.ly/2ozumPf ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Still Facing Asbestos Suits at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Manitex International, Inc., is still facing asbestos-related product liability lawsuits against multiple defendants, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. Manitex states, "The Company has been named as a defendant in several multi-defendant asbestos related product liability lawsuits. In certain instances, the Company is indemnified by a former owner of the product line in question. In the remaining cases the plaintiff has, to date, not been able to establish any exposure by the plaintiff to the Company's products. The Company is uninsured with respect to these claims but believes that it will not incur any material liability with respect to these to claims." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at http://bit.ly/2qb6vp1 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit vs. Energy Fuels' Mill Still Pending in TX ---------------------------------------------------------------- An asbestos-related proceeding involving Energy Fuels Inc.'s White Mesa Mill remains pending in Texas, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. Energy Fuel states, "In November 2012, the Company was served with a Plaintiff's Original Petition and Jury Demand in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, claiming unspecified damages from the disease and injuries resulting from mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos, which the Plaintiff claims was contributed to by being exposed to asbestos products and dust while working at the White Mesa Mill. The Company does not consider this claim to have any merit, and therefore does not believe it will materially affect our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. "In January, 2013, the Company filed a Special Appearance challenging jurisdiction and certain other procedural matters relating to this claim. No other activity involving the Company on this matter has occurred since that date." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at http://bit.ly/2qbdtdq ASBESTOS UPDATE: CPA17 Records $17.7-Mil. ARO at Dec. 31 -------------------------------------------------------- Corporate Property Associates 17-Global Incorporated, or CPA(R):17-Global, has recorded asset retirement obligations of US$17.7 million at December 31, 2016 for the removal of asbestos and environmental waste related to several of its investments, the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company states, "We have recorded asset retirement obligations for the removal of asbestos and environmental waste in connection with certain of our investments. We estimated the fair value of the asset retirement obligations based on the estimated economic lives of the properties and the estimated removal costs provided by the inspectors. The liability was discounted using the weighted-average interest rate on the associated fixed-rate mortgage loans at the time the liability was incurred. A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at http://bit.ly/2qiBV97 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Had 1,200 Claims at Dec. 31 ----------------------------------------------------------- Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. continues to face around 1,200 claims for allege exposure to asbestos at December 31, 2016, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company states, "We are a defendant in lawsuits wherein plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos due to work we may have performed at various locations. We have never been a manufacturer, distributor or supplier of asbestos products. Over the past several decades and through December 31, 2016, we have been named a defendant in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos involving approximately 6,000 plaintiffs and, of those claims, approximately 1,200 claims were pending and 4,800 have been closed through dismissals or settlements. "Over the past several decades and through December 31, 2016, the claims alleging exposure to asbestos that have been resolved have been dismissed or settled for an average settlement amount of approximately two thousand dollars per claim. We review each case on its own merits and make accruals based upon the probability of loss and our estimates of the amount of liability and related expenses, if any. "While we have seen an increase in the number of recent filings, especially in one specific venue, we do not believe the increase or any unresolved asserted claims will have a material adverse effect on our future results of operations, financial position or cash flow, and at December 31, 2016, we had approximately US$9.2 million accrued for liability and related expenses. "With respect to unasserted asbestos claims, we cannot identify a population of potential claimants with sufficient certainty to determine the probability of a loss and to make a reasonable estimate of liability, if any. While we continue to pursue recovery for recognized and unrecognized contingent losses through insurance, indemnification arrangements or other sources, we are unable to quantify the amount, if any, that we may expect to recover because of the variability in coverage amounts, limitations and deductibles, or the viability of carriers, with respect to our insurance policies for the years in question." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/Q65bbr ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Had US$303.6MM Loss Reserves at Dec 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Everest Re Group, Ltd. had net asbestos loss reserves of US$303.6 million, or 95.2%, of total net A&E reserves, all of which was for assumed business, at December 31, 2016, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. Everest states, "The Company intensively manages its asbestos and environmental ("A&E") exposures through a dedicated, centrally managed claim staff with experienced claim and legal professionals who specialize in the handling of such exposures. They actively manage each individual insured and reinsured account, responding to claim developments with evaluations of the involved exposures and adjustment of reserves as appropriate. Specific or general claim developments that may have material implications for the Company are regularly communicated to senior management, actuarial, legal and financial areas. Senior management and claim management personnel meet at least quarterly to review the Company's overall reserve positions and make changes, if appropriate. The Company continually reviews its internal processing, communications and analytics, seeking to enhance the management of its A&E exposures, in particular in regard to changes in asbestos claims and litigation. "At December 31, 2016, the Company's gross reserves for A&E claims represented 4.3% of its total reserves. The Company's A&E liabilities stem from Mt. McKinley's direct insurance business and Everest Re's assumed reinsurance business. Liabilities related to Mt. McKinley's direct business, which had been ceded to Bermuda Re previously, were retroceded to an affiliate of Clearwater Insurance Company in July 2015, concurrent with the sale of Mt. McKinley to Clearwater Insurance Company. There are significant uncertainties in estimating the amount of the Company's potential losses from A&E claims and ultimate values cannot be estimated using traditional reserving techniques. "The difficulty in estimating our reserves is significantly more challenging as it relates to reserving for potential A&E liabilities. At year-end 2016, 4.3% of our gross reserves were comprised of A&E reserves. A&E liabilities are especially hard to estimate for many reasons, including the long delays between exposure and manifestation of any bodily injury or property damage, difficulty in identifying the source of the asbestos or environmental contamination, long reporting delays and difficulty in properly allocating liability for the asbestos or environmental damage. Legal tactics and judicial and legislative developments affecting the scope of insurers' liability, which can be difficult to predict, also contribute to uncertainties in estimating reserves for A&E liabilities. "Incurred losses and loss adjustment expenses (LAE) increased by 6.6% to US$3,064.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2015 compared to US$2,875.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2014, primarily due to an increase in current year attritional losses of US$210.8 million resulting primarily from the impact of the increase in premiums earned, a US$60.0 million loss from the explosion at the Chinese port of Tianjin and numerous weather- related losses that did not meet our US$10.0 million catastrophe threshold, partially offset by US$19.5 million of more favorable prior year attritional loss development. The US$31.6 million of favorable prior years' attritional loss development is comprised of US$183.7 million of favorable development in the reinsurance segments, partially offset by US$152.1 million of development in the insurance segment. The US$183.7 million of favorable development related primarily to casualty and property treaty business and was net of US$38.4 million of development in asbestos reserves. The development in the insurance segment largely related to run-off umbrella program and construction liability business. The current year catastrophe losses of US$87.2 million. The US$83.9 million of current year catastrophe losses for the year ended December 31, 2014 related to the Japan snowstorm (US$27.8 million), the 2014 Chilean earthquake (US$20.7 million), Hurricane Odile (US$20.5 million) and the Brisbane hailstorm (US$14.9 million). The US$33.4 million of favorable development on prior years' catastrophes related primarily to the 2013 German hail storms, European floods, Typhoon Fitow and U.S, storms. "We continue to receive claims under expired insurance and reinsurance contracts asserting injuries and/or damages relating to or resulting from environmental pollution and hazardous substances, including asbestos. Environmental claims typically assert liability for (a) the mitigation or remediation of environmental contamination or (b) bodily injury or property damage caused by the release of hazardous substances into the land, air or water. Asbestos claims typically assert liability for bodily injury from exposure to asbestos or for property damage resulting from asbestos or products containing asbestos. "Our reserves include an estimate of our ultimate liability for A&E claims. Our A&E liabilities emanate from Everest Re's assumed reinsurance business. Liabilities related to Mt. McKinley's direct business, which had been ceded to Bermuda Re previously, were retroceded to an affiliate of Clearwater Insurance Company in July, 2015, concurrent with the sale of Mt. McKinley to Clearwater Insurance Company. "There are significant uncertainties surrounding our estimates of our potential losses from A&E claims. Among the uncertainties are: (a) potentially long waiting periods between exposure and manifestation of any bodily injury or property damage; (b) difficulty in identifying sources of asbestos or environmental contamination; (c) difficulty in properly allocating responsibility and/or liability for asbestos or environmental damage; (d) changes in underlying laws and judicial interpretation of those laws; (e) the potential for an asbestos or environmental claim to involve many insurance providers over many policy periods; (f) questions concerning interpretation and application of insurance and reinsurance coverage; and (g) uncertainty regarding the number and identity of insureds with potential asbestos or environmental exposure. "Due to the uncertainties, the ultimate losses attributable to A&E, and particularly asbestos, may be subject to more variability than are non-A&E reserves and such variation could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and/or cash flows." ASBESTOS UPDATE: MLIC Still Faces Asbestos Suits at Dec. 31 ----------------------------------------------------------- A MetLife, Inc. unit, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MLIC), continues to defend itself against asbestos-related lawsuits generally focusing on activities from 1920's to 1950's, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company states, "MLIC is and has been a defendant in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts. These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages. MLIC has never engaged in the business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products nor has MLIC issued liability or workers' compensation insurance to companies in the business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products. "The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with respect to certain research, publication and other activities of one or more of MLIC's employees during the period from the 1920's through approximately the 1950's and allege that MLIC learned or should have learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among other things, improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health risks. MLIC believes that it should not have legal liability in these cases. "The outcome of most asbestos litigation matters, however, is uncertain and can be impacted by numerous variables, including differences in legal rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims asserted against MLIC. "MLIC employs a number of resolution strategies to manage its asbestos loss exposure, including seeking resolution of pending litigation by judicial rulings and settling individual or groups of claims or lawsuits under appropriate circumstances. "Claims asserted against MLIC have included negligence, intentional tort and conspiracy concerning the health risks associated with asbestos. "MLIC's defenses (beyond denial of certain factual allegations) include that: (i) MLIC owed no duty to the plaintiffs -- it had no special relationship with the plaintiffs and did not manufacture, produce, distribute or sell the asbestos products that allegedly injured plaintiffs; (ii) plaintiffs did not rely on any actions of MLIC; (iii) MLIC's conduct was not the cause of the plaintiffs' injuries; (iv) plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the dangers of asbestos were known; and (v) the applicable time with respect to filing suit has expired. "During the course of the litigation, certain trial courts have granted motions dismissing claims against MLIC, while other trial courts have denied MLIC's motions. There can be no assurance that MLIC will receive favorable decisions on motions in the future. While most cases brought to date have settled, MLIC intends to continue to defend aggressively against claims based on asbestos exposure, including defending claims at trials. "The ability to make estimates regarding ultimate asbestos exposure declines significantly as the estimates relate to years further in the future. In the Company's judgment, there is a future point after which losses cease to be probable and reasonably estimable. It is reasonably possible that the Company's total exposure to asbestos claims may be materially greater than the asbestos liability currently accrued and that future charges to income may be necessary. While the potential future charges could be material in the particular quarterly or annual periods in which they are recorded, based on information currently known by management, management does not believe any such charges are likely to have a material effect on the Company's financial position. "The Company believes adequate provision has been made in its consolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonably estimable losses for asbestos-related claims. MLIC's recorded asbestos liability is based on its estimation of the following elements, as informed by the facts presently known to it, its understanding of current law and its past experiences: (i) the probable and reasonably estimable liability for asbestos claims already asserted against MLIC, including claims settled but not yet paid; (ii) the probable and reasonably estimable liability for asbestos claims not yet asserted against MLIC, but which MLIC believes are reasonably probable of assertion; and (iii) the legal defense costs associated with the foregoing claims. Significant assumptions underlying MLIC's analysis of the adequacy of its recorded liability with respect to asbestos litigation include: (i) the number of future claims; (ii) the cost to resolve claims; and (iii) the cost to defend claims. "MLIC reevaluates on a quarterly and annual basis its exposure from asbestos litigation, including studying its claims experience, reviewing external literature regarding asbestos claims experience in the U.S., assessing relevant trends impacting asbestos liability and considering numerous variables that can affect its asbestos liability exposure on an overall or per claim basis. These variables include bankruptcies of other companies involved in asbestos litigation, legislative and judicial developments, the number of pending claims involving serious disease, the number of new claims filed against it and other defendants and the jurisdictions in which claims are pending. "In 2014, MLIC increased its recorded liability for asbestos- related claims to US$690 million. Based upon its regular reevaluation of its exposure from asbestos litigation, MLIC has updated its liability analysis for asbestos-related claims through December 31, 2016." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/0fygbv ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Republic Has $89.6MM Gross Reserve at Dec31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Old Republic International Corporation had gross reserve of US$89.6 million (net reserve of US$76.7 million) for asbestos claims at December 31, 2016, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company states, "Old Republic's reserve estimates also include provisions for indemnity and settlement costs for various asbestosis and environmental impairment ("A&E") claims that have been filed in the normal course of business against a number of its insurance subsidiaries. Many such claims relate to policies issued prior to 1985, including many issued during a short period between 1981 and 1982 pursuant to an agency agreement canceled in 1982. "Over the years, the Company's property and liability insurance subsidiaries have typically issued general liability insurance policies with face amounts ranging between US$1.0 million and US$2.0 million and rarely exceeding US$10.0 million. Such policies have, in turn, been subject to reinsurance cessions which have typically reduced the subsidiaries' net retentions to US$.5 million or less as to each claim. "Old Republic's exposure to A&E claims cannot, however, be calculated by conventional insurance reserving methods for a variety of reasons, including: a) the absence of statistically valid data inasmuch as such claims typically involve long reporting delays and very often uncertainty as to the number and identity of insureds against whom such claims have arisen or will arise; and b) the litigation history of such or similar claims for insurance industry members which has produced inconsistent court decisions with regard to such questions as to when an alleged loss occurred, which policies provide coverage, how a loss is to be allocated among potentially responsible insureds and/or their insurance carriers, how policy coverage exclusions are to be interpreted, what types of environmental impairment or toxic tort claims are covered, when the insurer's duty to defend is triggered, how policy limits are to be calculated, and whether clean-up costs constitute property damage. "Over time, the Executive Branch and/or the Congress of the United States have proposed or considered changes in the legislation and rules affecting the determination of liability for environmental and asbestosis claims. As of December 31, 2016, however, there is no solid evidence to suggest that possible future changes might mitigate or reduce some or all of these claim exposures. "Because of the issues and uncertainties, estimation of reserves for losses and allocated loss adjustment expenses for A&E claims in particular is much more difficult or impossible to quantify with a high degree of precision. Accordingly, no representation can be made that the Company's reserves for such claims and related costs will not prove to be overstated or understated in the future. "At December 31, 2016 and 2015, Old Republic's aggregate indemnity and loss adjustment expense reserves specifically identified with A&E exposures amounted to approximately US$121.2 million and US$130.9 million gross, respectively, and US$97.1 million and US$100.6 million net of reinsurance, respectively. Based on average annual claims payments during the five most recent calendar years, such reserves represented a paid loss survival ratio of 4.3 years (gross) and 6.3 years (net of reinsurance) as of December 31, 2016 and 4.7 years (gross) and 6.2 years (net of reinsurance) as of December 31, 2015. "Fluctuations in this ratio between years can be caused by the inconsistent pay out patterns associated with these types of claims. For the five years ended December 31, 2016, incurred A&E claim and related loss settlement costs have averaged .4% of average annual General Insurance Group claims and related settlement costs." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/pphj3n ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Chemical Unit Still Faces Claims at Dec31 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Asbestos-related claims against an inactive subsidiary of Quaker Chemical Corporation remain pending, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company states, "An inactive subsidiary of the Company that was acquired in 1978 sold certain products containing asbestos, primarily on an installed basis, and is among the defendants in numerous lawsuits alleging injury due to exposure to asbestos. The subsidiary discontinued operations in 1991 and has no remaining assets other than proceeds received from insurance settlements. "The overwhelming majority of these claims have been disposed of without payment and there have been no adverse judgments against the subsidiary. Based on a continued analysis of the existing and anticipated future claims against this subsidiary, it is currently projected that the subsidiary's total liability over the next 50 years for these claims is approximately US$2.2 million (excluding costs of defense). "Although the Company has also been named as a defendant in certain of these cases, no claims have been actively pursued against the Company, and the Company has not contributed to the defense or settlement of any of these cases pursued against the subsidiary. These cases were handled by the subsidiary's primary and excess insurers who had agreed in 1997 to pay all defense costs and be responsible for all damages assessed against the subsidiary arising out of existing and future asbestos claims up to the aggregate limits of their policies. "A significant portion of this primary insurance coverage was provided by an insurer that is insolvent, and the other primary insurers asserted that the aggregate limits of their policies have been exhausted. The subsidiary challenged the applicability of these limits to the claims being brought against the subsidiary. "In response, two of the three carriers entered into separate settlement and release agreements with the subsidiary in 2005 and 2007 for US$15.0 million and US$20.0 million, respectively. The proceeds of both settlements are restricted and can only be used to pay claims and costs of defense associated with the subsidiary's asbestos litigation. "In 2007, the subsidiary and the remaining primary insurance carrier entered into a Claim Handling and Funding Agreement, under which the carrier is paying 27% of defense and indemnity costs incurred by or on behalf of the subsidiary in connection with asbestos bodily injury claims. The agreement continues until terminated and can only be terminated by either party by providing a minimum of two years prior written notice. "As of December 31, 2016, no notice of termination has been given under this agreement. At the end of the term of the agreement, the subsidiary may choose to again pursue its claim against this insurer regarding the application of the policy limits. The Company believes that, if the coverage issues under the primary policies with the remaining carrier are resolved adversely to the subsidiary and all settlement proceeds were used, the subsidiary may have limited additional coverage from a state guarantee fund established following the insolvency of one of the subsidiary's primary insurers. Nevertheless, liabilities in respect of claims may exceed the assets and coverage available to the subsidiary." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/Efm2fW ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Faces 636 PI Cases at Dec. 31 ----------------------------------------------------- TriMas Corporation continues to defend itself against 636 asbestos-related personal injury cases at December 31, 2016, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. TriMas states, "As of December 31, 2016, the Company was a party to 636 pending cases involving an aggregate of 5,339 claimants primarily alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos containing materials formerly used in gaskets (both encapsulated and otherwise) manufactured or distributed by certain of its subsidiaries for use primarily in the petrochemical refining and exploration industries. "In addition, the Company acquired various companies to distribute its products that had distributed gaskets of other manufacturers prior to acquisition. The Company believes that many of the pending cases relate to locations at which none of its gaskets were distributed or used. "The Company may be subjected to significant additional asbestos- related claims in the future, the cost of settling cases in which product identification can be made may increase, and the Company may be subjected to further claims in respect of the former activities of its acquired gasket distributors. The Company is unable to make a meaningful statement concerning the monetary claims made in the asbestos cases given that, among other things, claims may be initially made in some jurisdictions without specifying the amount sought or by simply stating the requisite or maximum permissible monetary relief, and may be amended to alter the amount sought. The large majority of claims do not specify the amount sought. Of the 5,339 claims pending at December 31, 2016, 76 set forth specific amounts of damages (other than those stating the statutory minimum or maximum). At December 31, 2016, of the 76 claims that set forth specific amounts, there were no claims seeking specific amounts for punitive damages. "In addition, relatively few of the claims have reached the discovery stage and even fewer claims have gone past the discovery stage. "Total settlement costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all such cases, some of which were filed over 20 years ago, have been approximately US$8.3 million. All relief sought in the asbestos cases is monetary in nature. To date, approximately 40% of the Company's costs related to settlement and defense of asbestos litigation have been covered by its primary insurance. Effective February 14, 2006, the Company entered into a coverage-in-place agreement with its first level excess carriers regarding the coverage to be provided to the Company for asbestos-related claims when the primary insurance is exhausted. The coverage-in-place agreement makes asbestos defense costs and indemnity insurance coverage available to the Company that might otherwise be disputed by the carriers and provides a methodology for the administration of such expenses. Nonetheless, the Company believes it is likely that there will be a period within the next six to 18 months, prior to the commencement of coverage under this agreement and following exhaustion of the Company's primary insurance coverage, during which the Company likely will be solely responsible for defense costs and indemnity payments, the duration of which would be subject to the scope of damage awards and settlements paid. "Based on the settlements made to date and the number of claims dismissed or withdrawn for lack of product identification, the Company believes that the relief sought (when specified) does not bear a reasonable relationship to its potential liability. Based upon the Company's experience to date, including the trend in annual defense and settlement costs incurred to date, and other available information (including the availability of excess insurance), the Company does not believe that these cases will have a material adverse effect on its financial position and results of operations or cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/oi4a3E ASBESTOS UPDATE: Badger Meter Still Defends PI Suits at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Badger Meter, Inc., remains a defendant in asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits filed against multiple parties, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company states, "Like other companies in recent years, the Company is named as a defendant in numerous pending multi- claimant/multi-defendant lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, manufactured by third parties, and in the past may have been integrated into or sold with a very limited number of the Company's products. The Company is vigorously defending itself against these claims. Although it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of these matters, the Company does not believe the ultimate resolution of these issues will have a material adverse affect on the Company's financial position or results of operations, either from a cash flow perspective or on the financial statements as a whole. This belief is based in part on the fact that no claimant has proven or substantially demonstrated asbestos exposure caused by products manufactured or sold by the Company and that most of the cases have been voluntarily dismissed." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/60a222 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chubb Ltd. Had US$1.7-Bil. Reserve at Dec. 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- Chubb Limited had US$1.7 billion gross reserve (net of US$1.1 billion) for asbestos exposure at December 31, 2016, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company states, "Included in our liabilities for losses and loss expenses are amounts for A&E (A&E liabilities). The A&E liabilities principally relate to claims arising from bodily- injury claims related to asbestos products and remediation costs associated with hazardous waste sites. The estimation of our A&E liabilities is particularly sensitive to future changes in the legal, social, and economic environment. We have not assumed any such future changes in setting the value of our A&E liabilities, which include provisions for both reported and IBNR claims. "There are many complex variables that we consider when estimating the reserves for our inventory of asbestos accounts and these variables may directly impact the predicted outcome. We believe the most significant variables relating to our A&E liabilities include the current legal environment; specific settlements that may be used as precedents to settle future claims; assumptions regarding trends with respect to claim severity and the frequency of higher severity claims; assumptions regarding the ability to allocate liability among defendants (including bankruptcy trusts) and other insurers; the ability of a claimant to bring a claim in a state in which they have no residency or exposure; the ability of a policyholder to claim the right to unaggregated coverage; whether high-level excess policies have the potential to be accessed given the policyholder's claim trends and liability situation; payments to unimpaired claimants; and, the potential liability of peripheral defendants. Based on the policies, the facts, the law, and a careful analysis of the impact that these factors will likely have on any given account, we estimate the potential liability for indemnity, policyholder defense costs, and coverage litigation expense. "The results in asbestos cases announced by other carriers or defendants may well have little or no relevance to us because coverage exposures are highly dependent upon the specific facts of individual coverage and resolution status of disputes among carriers, policyholders, and claimants. "Chubb's exposure to A&E claims principally arises out of liabilities acquired when it purchased Westchester Specialty in 1998, CIGNA's P&C business in 1999, and Chubb Corp in 2016." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/Bm20dJ ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wabtec, Units Still Face PI Claims at Dec. 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation (Wabtec) and its affiliates continue to face asbestos-related claims for alleged bodily injuries, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company states, "Claims have been filed against the Company and certain of its affiliates in various jurisdictions across the United States by persons alleging bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products. Most of these claims have been made against our wholly owned subsidiary, Railroad Friction Products Corporation ("RFPC"), and are based on a product sold by RFPC prior to the time that the Company acquired any interest in RFPC. "Most of these claims, including all of the RFPC claims, are submitted to insurance carriers for defense and indemnity or to non-affiliated companies that retain the liabilities for the asbestos-containing products at issue. We cannot, however, assure that all these claims will be fully covered by insurance or that the indemnitors or insurers will remain financially viable. Our ultimate legal and financial liability with respect to these claims, as is the case with other pending litigation, cannot be estimated. "It is management's belief that the potential range of loss for asbestos-related bodily injury cases is not reasonably determinable at present due to a variety of factors, including: (1) the asbestos case settlement history of the Company's wholly owned subsidiary, RFPC; (2) the unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation in general; and (3) the uncertainty of asbestos litigation in particular. Despite this uncertainty, and although the results of the Company's operations and cash flows for any given period could be adversely affected by asbestos-related lawsuits, Management believes that the final resolution of the Company's asbestos-related cases will not be material to the Company's overall financial position, results of operations and cash flows. In general, this belief is based upon: (1) Wabtec's and RFPC's history of settlements and dismissals of asbestos- related cases to date; (2) the inability of many plaintiffs to establish any exposure or causal relationship to RFPC's product; and (3) the inability of many plaintiffs to demonstrate any identifiable injury or compensable loss. "More specifically, as to RFPC, management's belief that any losses due to asbestos-related cases would not be material is also based on the fact that RFPC owns insurance which provides coverage for asbestos-related bodily injury claims. To date, RFPC's insurers have provided RFPC with defense and indemnity in these actions. The overall number of new claims being filed against RFPC has dropped significantly in recent years; however, these new claims, and all previously filed claims, may take a significant period of time to resolve. As to Wabtec and its divisions, Management's belief that asbestos-related cases will not have a material impact is also based on its position that it has no legal liability for asbestos-related bodily injury claims, and that the former owners of Wabtec's assets retained asbestos liabilities for the products at issue. To date, Wabtec has been able to successfully defend itself on this basis, including two arbitration decisions and a judicial opinion, all of which confirmed Wabtec's position that it did not assume any asbestos liabilities from the former owners of certain Wabtec assets. Although Wabtec has incurred defense and administrative costs in connection with asbestos bodily injury actions, these costs have not been material, and the Company has no information that would suggest these costs would become material in the foreseeable future." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/cFtSGX ASBESTOS UPDATE: Port to Rid of Asbestos in Hillcrest Properties ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Ramirez, writing for Corpus Christi Caller-Times, reported that The Port of Corpus Christi will spend $600,000 to get rid of asbestos from Hillcrest properties they acquire as part of the state's Harbor Bridge replacement project. Port commissioners were updated on the $930 million project and on efforts to relocate residents who are expected to affected by the construction. Commissioners approved a series of measures related to the relocation program, including purchase orders with two area landfills -- US Ecology and the Republic Services El Centro. The two facilities, each located in Robstown, are the only such facilities in the area that are licensed by the state to dispose of asbestos. Many of the homes in this largely minority Northside enclave were built in the 1950s or 1960s, when asbestos was commonplace in home design for both insulation and protection against fire. Some asbestos products, mainly sprays, were banned in 1973 under the EPA's Clean Air Act. In 1989, the EPA issued a final rule under Section 6 of Toxic Substances Control Act banning most asbestos-containing products, but it was overturned in 1991 by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Each landfill will receive $300,000 to dispose of the material as part the agreement, according to port documents. Sean Strawbridge, deputy executive director and chief operating officer for the port, said the funds were included in the $20 million package the port authorized a year ago to finance property purchases and to relocate qualified residents. The Texas Department of Transportation broke ground for the project in August. Under the relocation plan, Hillcrest homeowners can be moved to a "comparable home," if they qualify. Homeowners who give up their property as part of the relocation program would get market value, but Hillcrest resident Ron Navarro argued that wasn't enough. Property in Hillcrest is changing hands for less money under this program than elsewhere in the city, he said. Navarro said it's likely properties in Hillcrest will be set aside for industrial use after the port acquires them. Homeowners, he told commissioners, should be compensated at industrial rates. "If that's going to be commercial real estate, then the people need to be paid for commercial real estate," Navarro said. Construction of the replacement span is underway on port property, on the north side of the Corpus Christi Ship Channel. Darrell Chambers, the design build coordinator for Flatiron-Dragdos, said construction is on pace to last roughly five years. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vernon School District Faces $628,000 Fines ------------------------------------------------------------ Charlotte Helston, writing for Vernon Infonews.ca, reported that a fine of more than $628,000 has been leveled against the Vernon School District in connection with renovation work done on a leased building that contained asbestos. WorkSafe B.C. has fined the school district a total of $628,034 for not taking proper safety precautions, not providing and maintaining a safe workplace, and a lack of due diligence to prevent the circumstances, according to a media release from the school district. The penalty follows a $75,000 fine in 2016 for similar issues after the district failed to properly identify material that may contain asbestos. The school district will be fighting the fine. "The District believes that it advanced sound arguments why no penalty was warranted and that it took all reasonable steps to comply with its asbestos hazard mitigation obligations. The District is disappointed in what it considers to be an excessive penalty and will be working with our lawyers and asking for a review of the penalty," states the release. In an interview, Superintendent Joe Rogers says the fine, if it is not successfully reduced or withdrawn, could have an impact on education. The fine would be paid out of the district's $1-million contingency fund, and while it won't affect staff and programs this year, it could in the future depending on how quickly the board wants to replenish the fund. "We build it (contingency fund) back up through surpluses. If we don't have surpluses in the future it may affect programs," Rogers says. "Certainly if we have to absorb the fine, it is concerning. It potentially could be six or more teachers, or dozens of secretaries. It depends on (what) WorkSafe will do and if we have surpluses to replenish that fund." The penalty has to do with renovation work at the Open Door Learning Centre on 30 Street in downtown Vernon. On May 4, 2016, a worker became concerned about what appeared to be pre-1990 building materials which could contain asbestos, but work didn't stop immediately. Rogers says the district takes worker safety very seriously and has developed an asbestos management program and asbestos exposure control plan, has retained a qualified person to conduct asbestos surveys, hazard assessments and prepare inventories of all asbestos containing materials in all district buildings, and has undertaken comprehensive asbestos training with its maintenance workers. At the time of the second violation, the plan did not include specific asbestos management policies for leased buildings, such as the one it was renting for the Open Door Learning Program. Rogers says the district believed, at the time, that the building had been renovated in the past and did not contain any asbestos- containing material. "Certainly after this we will be demanding from the building owner a full disclosure, and in this case . . . when we look back, we should have received a full disclosure from the building owner explaining what had been done," Rogers says. During renovations, there were four or five maintenance workers on site. Rogers is not aware of any of them suffering adverse health effects. No students or teachers were exposed. As part of its appeal, the school district will be arguing the penalty should be imposed as a worksite violation, not based on the total payroll. "They fined us on all 850 employees, that's why the fine is so high," Rogers says. If the penalty was calculated based on the immediate worksite affected, Rogers says the fine would be closer to $1,250. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NZ Resident Fears Asbestos in Dumped Rubbish ------------------------------------------------------------- Catrin Owen, writing for Aukland Now, reported that An Auckland fly-tipper has dumped a Flexi Bin full of potentially hazardous material near where children play. The Flexi Bin bag, filled with household rubbish and broken tiles, was dumped morning at the end of Rika Rd in Pt England. An Auckland resident, who only wanted to be known as Casper, said he was concerned about the safety of children because he believed the skip bag contained asbestos. A local resident fears the rubbish may include asbestos. "A neighbour heard a truck backing up thinking it was collecting all the rubbish bins but it raced off." The resident put in calls to Flexi Bin and Auckland Council. "Flexi Bin said it wasn't their problem and there was no urgency from council. "I was more concerned about the kids but the council seemed quite dismissive," he said. The resident called the Fire Service to report the illegal dumping. Fire Northern Communications shift manager Daniel Nicholson said the Mt Wellington station was called to the scene of the illegal dumping. "It was a bin full of rubbish and what appeared to be asbestos roof tiles." He said there would need to be further testing to confirm whether it did contain asbestos. Asbestos is New Zealand's number one killer in the workplace with around 170 people dying each year from related diseases. Asbestos waste must be disposed of at a local or territorial authority landfill authorised to accept asbestos waste. Casper said the council finally sent out a worker who surveyed the scene at 11.20am, while a child continued to cycle around the bag. Casper said stolen cars were often dumped at the end of the road and occasionally rubbish. "We try and mow the lawns and keep it clean to make it an undesirable place to dump the cars," he said. Auckland Council spokesman Ian Stupple said a staff member investigated the area and stickered the illegal dumping. "As illegal dumping might contain hazardous waste, we are arranging to get this removed as quickly as possible," he said. Stupple said council would investigate the incident further. It costs ratepayers more than $1 million annually for the council to clean up illegal dumping, Stupple said. The penalty for a successful prosecution in relation to illegal dumping is up to $30,000. "We endeavour to investigate every report of illegal dumping and look for evidence of the offenders, by door knocking, flyer drops to encourage residents to notify us when they see it happening, and regularly checking hot spots." Illegal dumping can be reported to the council on 09 301 0101 with information including times and dates and descriptions of the offenders. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Faces Jail for Dumping Asbestos Waste ---------------------------------------------------------- Lorraine King, writing for Newham Recorded, reported that a fly- tipper from Upminster could be facing jail after he admitted dumping 36 tonnes of asbestos-contaminated rubble on a street in Beckton. Stuart Beattie, 26, dumped the dangerous waste in two separate spots on Eric Clarke Lane, which resulted in the road being closed and buses put on diversion. His reckless action also mean the entrance to children's riding stables were blocked. The clear up operation cost the council GBP9,000. At Thames Magistrates Court he admitted fly-tipping. Beattie dumped 36 tonnes of asbestos-contaminated rubble on a street in Beckton. However the sitting magistrates said their powers of punishment were insufficient to match the seriousness of the crime so it was transferred to Snaresbrook Crown Court. Councillor Pat Murphy, mayoral adviser for environment, said: "This was a fantastic piece of work by the fly-tip task force, which has swiftly brought a criminal fly-tipper to book. Beattie showed no regard for the safety of Newham residents when he dumped asbestos-contaminated waste on a public highway. "His actions also resulted in substantial inconvenience to residents who found their buses re-routed. "I am delighted the magistrates recognised the seriousness of the offences, and we look forward to the crown court taking a similarly tough stance, and sentence accordingly. "This case underlines our commitment to investigate, catch and bring to justice criminals who endanger our residents, and deface our environment by dumping rubbish in our borough." Hartford's Wish School to reopen after asbestos removal completed. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wish School Reopens After Receiving Clearance -------------------------------------------------------------- Doug Stewart, writing for Fox 61 News, reported that the Wish School in Hartford re-opened after construction debris in the building tested positive for asbestos. The State Department Of Health gave the school final clearance after conducting additional air quality tests and everything checked out fine. According to Hartford school officials, over the school's spring break, contractors were in the school to remove old lockers when some insulation was exposed. In response to the discovery, contractors from Eagle Environment and officials from the state Department of Public health developed a removal plan. Students were out of school for two days. Two additional days of class will be added to the school's calendar to make up for the missed days. ASBESTOS UPDATE: U of T Rooms Reopen Following Asbestos Leaks ------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Cottrill, writing for OHSCanada.com, reported that the University of Toronto (U of T) has been hit with health and safety grievances from the union representing its teaching assistants and contract faculty, following a trio of recent asbestos leaks in the main campus' Medical Sciences Building. The leaks resulted from renovation work in the building, part of a large, campus-wide rehabilitation project funded in part by the federal and Ontario governments, according to Scott Mabury, U of T's vice president of university operations. Part of this project involves getting rid of all asbestos, he explained. "The University of Toronto has a policy," said Mabury, "that whenever we're doing a significant renovation in any space, we remove asbestos." The removal is not mandatory, he added, but the university's choice. The first leak occurred on Feb. 1, with the second on Feb. 24; these incidents affected four rooms in the research tower of the Medical Sciences Building. "I stress 'four' because we have 1,900 rooms in that building, to give you an idea of the scale," said Mabury. The third incident involved the discovery of a 50-year-old wall sealer, 0.5 per cent of which contained asbestos fibres, in another room of the research tower. "None of us had ever seen this before, and our outside consultants hadn't seen it before," Mabury said. Local 3902 of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) has claimed in its grievances that the university risked the health of its employees by allowing them to work in the building during the leaks. The majority of the building's workers were unaware of the first asbestos leak for about five weeks after its discovery, according to media reports. While CUPE Local 3902 did not respond to COHSN's request for comment, Mabury conceded that there had been insufficient communication to employees following the first leak. "In retrospect, it would have been better if we had more broadly communicated the first incident," he said. "But one has to balance that kind of communication with the desire not to unnecessarily raise concern and alarm." But the university did inform the joint health and safety committee of the leaks and take other required actions, such as frequent air-quality tests. As of April 17, U of T had conducted 491 air samples outside of the containment zones of the building since autumn, Mabury indicated. "We've had outside experts come in and assess all the evidence, both our procedures and actions, as well as all the data," he said. "We believe that the building is as safe now as it was when it was built." In addition, the asbestos contractor whose breaches caused the first two leaks is no longer working in the Medical Sciences Building. "That contractor had worked on campus for many, many years, very successfully, but that led us to not have them work in the building any further," said Mabury. Following the CUPE grievances, the university has put additional procedures and oversight in place and made efforts to communicate with workers and other stakeholders more effectively, such as in online updates. "We will more extensively communicate if this ever happens again," said Mabury. "We've learned from the experience here and applied this learning not only in this building, but throughout the tri- campus University of Toronto experience." ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravantefor, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2017. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Joseph Cardillo at 856-381- 8268. * * * End of Transmission * * *